STRICTURES 

f 

ON 


LECTURES  ON  BAPTISM, 


BY 


JOHN  T.  l»RESSIiY,  !>.!>. 


PITTSBURGH: 

PBINTEl)    BX    A.  .TArjTKS,  FRAXKLIX    HEAD,  THIBD    STREET. 

18  42.  • 


# 

Dl 

.^ 

.55 

^» 

Ic 

•5f 

-£- 

*^ 

^^^ 

IE 

£;:         Hi 

Q. 

x^ 

'B>     a 

o 

o 

$ 

«     5 

v 

c 

S        o 

bO 

PS 

•**      s 

< 

^ 

l5)     g 

"a; 

3 

^5" 

i^ 

£ 

.^ 

«>               M 

<"3 

^S 

^          Ph 

CO 

1- 

^         Pm 

2- 

1 

% 

c 

S 

^ 

1 

^ 

d: 

1^ 

joiyilo 


^      / 


i-t-*^*- 


l-z 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/stricturesonwillOOpres 


STRICTU  RES 


WEfe^E^Si®^  l^e^fe'^ 


LECTURES  ON  BAPTISM. 


JOHN    T.'PRESSLY,   D.  D. 


PITTSBURGH: 

PRINTED    BY   Ai   JAYNES,   FRANKLIN   HEAD,   THIRD   STREET. 

1842. 


preface!'/ 


That  it  is  the  duty  of  every  professed  follower 
of  Christ,  and  especially  of  every  christian  minis- 
ter, to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  which  was 
once  delivered  to  the  saints,  will  be  admitted  by 
all.  With  regard  to  some  things  included  in  the 
general  system  of  faith,  it  may  be  expected  that, 
in  the  present  state  of  imperfection,  there  will  ex- 
ist some  diversity  of  opinion,  even  among  brethren. 
While,  therefore,  every  one  should  be  fully  persuad- 
ed in  his  own  mind  and  should  testify  unequivocally 
and  decidedly  in  favor  of  that  which  he  believes  to 
be  the  truth  of  God,  we  should  at  the  same  time 
treat  with  tenderness  and  courtesy,  those  whose 
views  of  truth  may  in  some  respects  differ  from 
our  own.  And  when  religious  controversy  is  con- 
ducted with  candor  and  honesty;  when  the  views  of 
an  opponent  are  fairly  stated  and  his  argument 
fairly  met,  no  feelings  inconsistent  with  the  Gospel 
need  be  excited;  truth  may  be  elicited,  and  error 
exposed  in  its  true  colors.     But  when  a  writer  mis- 


IV  PREFACE. 

represents  an  argument  which  he  finds  it  difficult 
to  meet,  and  by  an  unfair  exhibition  of  the  views  of 
his  opponent,  endeavors  to  place  him  in  a  ridiculous 
attitude,  instead  of  shovving  the  inconclusiveness  of 
his  reasoning,  the  evil  passions  of  our  nature  are 
apt  to  be  aroused,  Christianity  suffers,  and  the  hum- 
ble inquirer  after  truth  is  perplexed,  rather  than 
assisted. 

In  preparing  a  compendious  treatise  on  Baptism, 
more  especially  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  my 
o^yn  charge,  it  was  my  object  to  avoid  every  thing 
like  controversial  asperity,  as  far  as  might  be  con- 
sistent with  a  faithful  exhibition  of  what  I  regard 
as  important  truth.  And  I  flatter  myself  that  little 
will  be  found  in  that  volume  calculated  to  offend 
even  those  brethren  who  may  not  be  able  to  con- 
cur with  me  in  sentinaent.  When  I  have  had  oc- 
casion to  speak  of  the  peculiar  views  of  Baptist^, 
I  hope  I  haye  treated  ihem  with  becoming  respect. 
While  I  certainly  entertain  no  unkind  feelings  to- 
wards those  brethren  from  whom  I  differ  in  opinion 
on  the  subject  of  baptism,  I  hope  that  no  unkind- 
ness  is  manifested  in  what  I  have  written.  Though 
I  must  believe  that  they  are  mistaken  in  their 
views  with  regard  to  some  principles  of  much  im- 
portance, yet  I  doubt  not  that  they  are  sincere  and 
honest  in  adhering  to  the  views  which  they  have 
e^poqsed.  And  therefore,  while  I  reject  their  con- 
clusions, I  would  respect  their  sincerity. 


pi!i:face. 


Almost  as  soon  as  my  humble  publication  began 
to  draw  the  breath  of  lite,  it  was  furiously  assailed 
by  a  writer  who  manifested  a  disposition  at  least, 
to  strangle  it  in  its  very  cradle.  With  the  Rev. 
Sa3Iuel  Williams,  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  in 
connection  with  the  Baptist  church,  I  have  had  a 
limited  acquaintance  for  some  ten  years  past.  In 
all  my  intercourse  with  that  gentleman,  I  have 
been  led  to  regard  him  as  a  respectable  man,  an 
humble  christian,  and  a  useful  and  laborious  minis- 
ter of  the  Gospel.  But  with  the  "Pastor  of  the 
First  Baptized  Church  of  Pittsburgh,"  author  of 
the  "Reply,"  I  have  no  acquaintance,  save  that 
which  has  been  derived  from  a  perusal  of  his  pub- 
lication. Whatever  may  be  my  regard  for  the 
man,  I  should  be  wanting  in  respect  for  myself, 
were  I  to  profess  respect  for  the  author.  Not  con- 
tent with  misrepresenting  my  views,  he  has  in  re- 
peated instances,  attributed  to  me,  motives  which 
are  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  christian  charac- 
ter. And  this  ungenerous  and  unlraternal  course 
is  the  less  excusable,  as  no  provocation  was  given, 
unless  a  plain  and  simple  exhibition  of  Avhat  I  be- 
lieve to  be  precious  truth,  should  be  regarded  as 
ground  of  offence. 

It  will  be  manifest,  however,  to  every  intelligent 
reader,  that  through  the  excess  of  his  desire  to  be- 
come an  author,  the  Pastor  of  the  First  Baptized 
1* 


VI  PREFACE. 

Church  of  Pittsburgli,  began  to  write  before  he 
was  ready.  And  if  he  has  occasionally  stumbled 
and  fallen,  he  has  only  experienced  the  fate  of 
those  rash  children  who  venture  to  run  before  they 
are  well  able  to  walk.  It  is  hoped,  however,  that 
he  will  profit  by  his  past  experience,  and  that  here- 
after, he  will  endeavor  to  mature  his  views  before 
he  obtrudes  them  upon  the  attention  of  the  public. 
That  the  reader  of  these  Strictures  may  come 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  and  experience  joy 
and  peace  in  believing,  is  the  prayer  of 

THE  AUTHOR. 


STRICTURE  S/^^cV  V 


CHAPTER   I. 

THE    REPLY    MISREPRESENTS    THE     POSITION    TAKEN 
BY    THE    LECTURES. 

In  the  regular  exercise  of  my  ministry,  I  deliv- 
ered some  time  since,  a  series  of  Lectures  on  the 
subject  of  Christian  Baptism,  with  a  view  to  the 
edification  of  the  people  of  my  charge.  At  the  re- 
quest of  my  friends,  these  Lectures  were  afterwards 
published.  Shortly  after  they  were  issued  from  the 
press  there  appeared  a  publication  which  professes 
to  be  a  ''Reply"  to  the  Lectures,  by  an  individual 
who  arrogates  to  himself  the  presumptuous  title  of 
"Pastor  of  the  Fii'sf  Baptized  Church  of  Pitts- 
burgh." 

In  the  estimation  of  every  one,  whose  opinion  has 
been  expressed  in  my  hearing,  the  "Reply,"  whe- 
ther the  matter  of  it,  or  the  spirit  which  pervades 
it,  be  regarded,  is  wholly  unworthy  of  any  thing 
like  a  formal  answer.  In  that  opinion  1  fully  con- 
cur. For  the  sake  of  the  cause,  however,  of  which 
I  am  the  humble  advocate,  it  has  been  thought  that 
the  boldness,  and  arrogance,  and  ignorance,  which 
display  themselves  so  conspicuously  in  the  "Reply," 


should  be  exposed.  For  such  a  work,  1  liave  neither 
leisure  nor  inclination.  But  if  a  zealous  apostle 
found  it  necessary  to  withstand  a  brother  to  his 
face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed  for  his  unchris- 
tian conduct,  it  seems  that  this  arrogant  boaster, 
who  presumes  to  place  himself  on  an  eminence  of 
his  own  creation,  and  virtually  says  to  all  the 
churches  of  God's  people  around  hin),  "Ye  are  no 
churches  of  Christ!"  should  be  rebuked  before  the 
bar  of  the  christian  public. 

"The  Pastor  of  the  First  Baptized  Church  of 
Pittsburgh!"  Then,  ye  venerable  Fathers  in  Christ, 
Black,  and  Bruce,  and  Herron,  and  others,  who,  it 
may  be,  were  pastors,  before  Samuel  Williams 
could  answer  the  question  in  the  child's  catechism, 
"Who  made  you?"  are  the  Pastors  of  unbaptized 
churches!  The  baptism  which  you  have  been  ad- 
ministering for  nearly  half  a  century,  is  no  christian 
baptism!  The  hundreds  whom  you  have  admitted 
into  the  fellowship  of  the  household  of  foith,  are  all 
unbaptized!  According  to  the  Pope,  who  issues  his 
Bulls  from  the  corner  of  Grant  and  Third  streets, 
neither  you,  nor  the  people  of  your  several  flocks, 
belong  to  the  church  of  Christ;  for  you  are  all  un- 
baptized! 

And  on  what  authority  is  a  position  assumed,  by 
which  nine-tenths  of  the  Lord's  people  are  virtually 
thrown  out  of  the  church  of  Christ  into  the  world, 
which  lieth  in  wickedness?  Why,  it  is  because  the 
water  of  baptism  has  not  been  applied  to  the  body, 
in  the  administration  of  the  external  rite,  in  that 
particular  way  which  Samuel  Williams  has  deter- 
mined to  be  the  only  proper  way. 

But  passing  by  the  arrogance  which  Mr.  Williams 
displays,  in  presuming  to  place  himself  be^fore  the 


christian  public  as  the  only  Pastor  of  a  ^^ Baptized 
church,"  in  the  city  of  Pittsburgh,  where  there  are, 
it  may  be,  a  dozen  Pastors  no  way  inferior  to  him- 
self in  any  thing  which  adorns  the  pastoral  charac- 
ter, let  me  direct  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  some 
examples  of  his  want  of  candor  and  honesty  in 
stating  the  views  of  the  author  to  whom  he  professes 
to  reply. 

On  page  6  of  the  "Reply,"  the  author  represents 
the  "Lectures,"  as  admitting,  that  the  commission 
vwhich  our  Lord  gave  to  his  apostles,  "specified  no 
.other  subjects  of  baptism  than  believers."  At  the 
bottom  of  the  same  page  this  statement  is  repeated. 
"He  (Dr.  P.)  admits  that  believers  are  the  only  sub- 
jects specified  in  the  commission."  Again  on  page  8, 
he  adds,  "Dr.  P.  admits  that  the  only  law  of  baptism 
God  ever  gave  to  man,  does  not  include  infants." 
Why,  Mr.  Williams  might  just  as  well  have  affirm- 
ed, that  Dr.  Pressly  admits  that  infants  have  no 
right  to  baptism;  and  then  it  would  have  been  wholly 
unnecessary  to  have  put  himself  to  the  trouble  of 
writing  his  "Reply." 

But  this  is  not  all.  On  page  10  he  says  again — 
"The  Dr.  admits  that  the  commission,  or  law  of 
baptism,  does  not  afford  any  evidence  of  the  right  of 
infant  baptism."  And  yet  once  more  he  repeats, — 
"He  says  they  are  not  included  in  it."  Here,  for  the 
fifth  time,  Mr.  Williams  represents  the  author  of  the 
Lectures,  as  yielding  the  point  in  controversy.  For 
.certainly,  if  "the  only  law  of  baptism  God  ever  gave 
to  man,  does  not  include  infants,"  then  it  would  be 
idle  to  plead  for  the  divine  right  of  infant  baptism. 

It  would  appear  that  the  author  of  the  "Reply" 
has  revolved  the  idea  in  his  own  mind,  until  some- 
bow  or  other  he  has  persuaded  himself  to  believe 


10 

that  the  Lectures  really  do  admit  what  he  alleges. 
Every  time  the  statement  is  repeated,  it  seems  to  be 
expressed  with  additional  strength  and  boldness.  In 
the  first  place  he  represents  the  Dr.  as  admitting 
simply  that  the  commission  does  not  specify  any 
other  subjects  of  baptism  than  believers.  Again,  he 
becomes  more  bold  and  says,  the  Dr.  admits  that 
"the  only  law  of  baptism  God  ever  gave  to  man, 
does  not  include  infants."  And  yet  if  the  reader 
will  turn  to  page  25  of  the  Lectures,  to  which  Mr. 
Williams  refers,  he  will  see  that  there  is  not  a  par- 
ticle of  truth  in  the  allegation  of  the  "Reply."  The 
language  employed  in  the  Lectures  is  the  following: 
"Such  expressions  as  these, — 'He  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized;'  'Repent  and  be  baptized,'  it  is  admitted, 
do  not  afford  any  evidence  of  the  right  of  infant 
baptism,  and  it  is  equally  plain  that  they  furnish  no 
argument  against  it."  The  reader  will  observe,  that 
there  is  nothing  here  said  in  reference  to  the  com- 
mission which  our  Lord  gave  to  his  apostles  to  ad- 
minister baptism;  much  less  is  there  an  admission 
that  infants  are  not  included  in  "the  only  law  of 
baptism  God  ever  gave  to  man."  The  commission 
given  to  the  apostles,  runs  in  these  words:  "Go 
teach  (disciple)  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  And  on  page  72  of  the  Lectures,  the  reader 
may  see  that  I  have  adduced  the  testimony  of  Justin 
Martyr,  to  show  that  there  were  many  of  the  breth- 
ren then  living,  "who  from  childhood,  were  made 
disciples  to  Christ;^''  and  consequently,  that  in  the 
estimation  of  this  ancient  Father,  the  command,  "to 
disciple  all  nations,"  does  include  infants. 

Again,  on  page  7,  we  have  another  instance  of 
gross  misrepresentation.    The  Lectures  are  charged 


11 

with  "assuming  that  faith  is  as  indispensable  to  the 
salvation  of  the  infant,  as  to  the  salvation  of  the 
adult;  and  that  baptism  is  as  essential  to  the  salva- 
tion of  the  soul  of  the  infant,  as  eating  is  to  the  life 
of  the  body."     And  having  conjured  up 

"  Gorgons  and  chimeras  dire," 

the  author  of  the  "Reply"  is  literally  frightened 
by  the  creatures  of  his  own  imagination,  and  ex- 
claims, "These  are  revolting  assumptions."  They 
are  doubtless  revolting  enough.  It  may,  however, 
be  sufficient  to  reply,  that  there  are  no  such  assump- 
tions in  the  Lectures,  nor  any  thing  like  them;  nor 
have  such  assumptions  any  connection  with  the  doc* 
trine  maintained  in  the  volume  to  which  Mr.  Wil* 
liams  professes  to  reply. 

The  position  taken  in  the  Lectures  is,  that,  to 
maintain  that  the  declaration,  "he  that  believeth  and 
is  baptized  shall  be  saved,"  authorizes  the  conclu- 
sion that  none  except  such  as  are  capable  of  believ- 
ing, are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  is  not  to  reason 
legitimately.  And  to  show  the  inconclusiveness  of 
this  mode  of  reasoning,  the  Lectures  subject  it  to 
the  plain  test  of  examination.  "He  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  On  these  words 
the  Baptist  reasons  thus :  "Infants  are  not  capable 
of  believing;  therefore  they  may  not  be  baptized." 
On  this  manner  of  reasoning  the  Lectures  remark, 
"If  this  inference  is  valid,  let  us  see  to  what  re- 
sults it  will  lead.  Our  Lord  further  declares,  'He 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.'  Apply  the 
mode  of  reasoning,  which  we  are  examining,  to 
this  declaration.  Infants  are  not  capable  of  believ- 
ing; therefore  all  infants  shall    be  damned!"     The 


12 

reader  will  at  once  perceive  that  this  is  a  totally  dif- 
ferent thing  from  an  assumption,  "that  faith  is  as  in- 
dispensable to  the  salvation  of  an  infant,  as  to  the 
salvation  of  an  adult."  The  Lectures  do  not  as- 
sume, but  clearly  show,  that  the  mode  of  reasoning 
employed  by  Baptists,  in  excluding  infants  from 
baptism,  would,  if  carried  out,  likewise  exclude  them 
from  salvation.  This  is  the  position,  not  assumed, 
but  demonstrated  in  the  Lectures;  and  it  is  periectly 
evident,  that  Mr.  Williams  does  not  know  how  to 
get  over  this  difficulty  in  his  way.  He  finds  it  an 
easier  task  to  conjure  up  terrific  "  assumptions," 
which  have  no  existence  save  in  a  disordered  brain, 
and  then,  fairly  frightened  by  the  creatures  of  his 
own  imagination,  he  runs  away,  uttering  the  ex- 
clamation, "  These  are  revolting  assumptions,  and 
are  utterly  at  war  with  truth  and  reason." 

For  the  purpose  of  making  still  more  apparent, 
the  fallacy  of  the  mode  of  reasoning  by  which  the 
Baptists  would  cut  our  children  off  from  an  interest 
in  baptism,  the  Lectures  give  another  illustration. 
*'ln  his  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  Paul  the  apos- 
tle says,  'When  we  were  with  you,  this  we  com- 
manded you,  that  if  any  would  not  work,  neither 
should  he  eat.'  2  Thess.  3:10.  Now  suppose  we 
should  reason  from  this  passage  of  Scripture,  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  manner  as  our  friends  would  ar- 
gue in  opposition  to  the  right  of  infant  baptism, 
from  the  declaration  of  our  Lord,  to  which  we  have 
referred,  to  what  conclusion  should  we  be  conducted? 
We  might  reason  thus :  Infants  cannot  work;  there- 
fore they  may  not  eat!  And  according  to  this  man- 
ner of  reasoning,  the  authority  of  the  apostle  might 
be  pleaded  in  support  of  the  doctrine,  that  infants 
who  cannot  labor  for  a  subsistence,  must  be  left 
to  starve." 


13 

Such  is  the  language  of  the  book  to  which  Mr. 
Williams  professes  to  reply;  and  any  school-boy 
can  see  that  it  is  an  illegitimate  and  inconclusive 
mode  of  reasoning  which  is  here  exposed.  But  the 
author  of  the  "Reply"  will  have  it,  that  here  is  an 
assumption  that  baptism  is  as  essential  to  the  salva- 
tion of  the  soul  of  the  infant,  as  eating  is  to  the  life 
of  the  body!  An  idea  which,  for  aught  I  know, 
never  occurred  to  the  mind  of  man,  before  it  arose 
amid  the  lucubrations  of  the  "Pastor  of  the  First 
Baptized  Church  of  Pittsburgh." 


CHAPTER  II. 

ARGUMENT  IN  FAVOR  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM  DRAWN 
FROM  THE  FACT,  THAT  THE  CHILDREN  OF  BE- 
LIEVERS WERE,  AT  THE  FIRST,  CONSTITUTED 
MEMBERS    OF    THE    VISIBLE    CHURCH    OF    GOD. 

As  another  example  of  the  want  of  candor  and 
honesty,  let  me  request  the  reader  to  notice  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  "Reply"  misrepresents  the  argu- 
ment of  the  Lectures  in  support  of  the  right  of  in- 
fant baptism  drawn  from  the  fact,  that  the  infants  of 
believers  were  originally  constituted  members  of  the 
visible  church  of  God.  The  argument  is  a  plain 
one,  and  one  which  rests  upon  an  indisputable  fact; 
and  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  author  of  the 
"Reply"  does  not  know  what  to  do  with  it.  Having 
sufficient  discernment  to  perceive,  that  it  would  not 
be  safe  for  him  to  grapple  the  argument,  like  a  wary 
general,  who  knows  the  power  of  his  foe,  he  pru- 
dently avoids  an  engagement  and  keeps  at  a  distance. 

The  argument  advanced  in  the  Lectures  may  be 
thus  stated  :  God  has  established  a  church  on  earth, 
in  which  he  dispenses  the  blessings  of  his  grace, 
and  prepares  the  heirs  of  salvation  for  the  enjoy- 
ment of  heavenly  glory.  At  the  first  establishment 
of  this  church  as  an  organized  society  in  the  family 
of  Abraham,  the  infants  of  believers  were  constitu- 
ted members  of  it.     As  an  evidence  of  their  con- 


16 

nection  with  the  church,  God  expressly  ordained 
that  they  should  receive  the  external  sign  of  his 
covenant  with  his  church.  Such  was  the  relation  of 
infants  to  the  church  of  God,  under  the  legal  dis- 
pensation. And  our  conclusion  from  this  position 
is,  that  as  the  church  still  exists,  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers are  still  to  be  regarded  as  entitled  to  mem- 
bership, unless  it  can  be  shown  that  God,  who  ori- 
ginally conferred  this  privilege,  has  taken  it  away. 

Now,  how  does  the  author  of  the  "Reply"  meet 
this  argument?  Does  he  even  once  look  it  in  the 
face?  Any  one  who  will  submit  to  the  toil  of  read- 
ing his  confused  and  incoherent  remarks  on  this 
part  of  the  subject,  may  see  that  he  never  once 
gives  a  fair  statement  of  the  argument  which  he 
proposes  to  answer;  and  that  he  does  not  venture  to 
assail  the  position  which  the  Lectures  take. 

On  page  13,  the  "Reply"  remarks:  "The  first 
argument  of  the  Dr.  is  from  the  supposed  identity 
of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church."  The  reader 
will  please  to  observe,  that  this  is  not  the  argument 
of  the  Lectures,  but  the  version  of  it,  which  Mr. 
Williams  chooses  to  give.  The  argument  is  drawn, 
not  from  the  "supposed  identity"  of  two  different 
churches,  but  from  the  real  and  indisputable  identity 
of  the  church  of  God,  under  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian dispensations.  The  church  of  God  existed  in 
the  days  of  Abraham;  continued  to  exist  down  to  the 
period  of  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  dispensation; 
and  still  exists,  since  that  brighter  day  dawned  upon 
the  world.  This  is  the  firm  position  on  which  the 
argument  of  the  Lectures  rests;  and  1  would  like  to 
know  if  Mr.  Williams,  with  the  Bible  before  him, 
would  dare  to  question  the  correctness  of  this  posi- 
tion.    From  the  "Reply,"  it  would  appear  that  he 


17 

neither  has  the  candor  to  admit  that  the  basis  of  the 
argument  is  solid,  nor  yet  the  courage  to  deny  it. 
Atter  giving  an  incorrect  version  of  the  argument, 
he  labors  to  make  the  author  of  the  Lectures  appear 
ridiculous,  by  insinuating  that  he  goes  to  the  Old 
Testament  to  find  a  New  Testament  ordinance. 
And  to  do  this  the  "Reply"  adds,  is  "very  singular," 
"because  the  ordinance  is  not  there." 

Now,  in  the  name  of  christian  candor  and  cour- 
tesy, I  would  ask,  does  not  Mr.  Williams  know,  that 
there  is  no  foundation  whatever  for  this  insinuation? 
He  knows  perfectly  well  that  it  is  not  the  design  of 
the  Lectures,  to  find  infant  baptism  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Did  Mr.  Williams  write  for  the  ignorant  and 
credulous,  who  might  be  expected  to  take  all  his 
statements  simply  on  his  own  authority?  Even  he 
himself  must  have  perceived,  that  any  person  of 
common  discernment,  could  see  through  the  disin- 
genuous artifice.  No!  The  Lectures,  as  Mr.  Wil- 
liams very  well  knows,  do  not  go  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment for  the  purpose  of  finding  infant  baptism.  But, 
as  it  is  in  the  Old  Testament  that  we  have  the  his- 
tory of  the  first  establishment  of  the  church  of  God, 
the  Lectures  very  naturally  go  there  to  learn  who, 
according  to  the  divine  appointment,  were  constitu- 
ted members  of  this  church.  And  the  Lectures 
find  in  the  Old  Testament  a  fact  of  great  importance, 
which  is  most  vexatiously  perplexing  to  Mr.  Wil- 
liams' system;  and  that  is,  that  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers have,  by  God's  own  appointment,  a  right  to 
membership  in  his  church. 

After  all,  it  is  not  very  surprising  that  Mr.  Wil- 
Siams  should  manifest  some  unwillingness  to  be  con- 
ducted to  that  portion  of  the  word  of  God,  where 

this  stubborn  and  unmanageable  fact  stares  him  in 
2* 


18 

the  face,  and  sternly  rebukes  his  exclusive  system. 
But,  we  must  be  allowed  to  remind  the  author  of  the 
"Reply,"  that  it  is  a  fact  very  clearly  revealed  in  the 
sacred  Oracles,  that  he  who  appointed  a  church  in 
our  world,  and  hath  said  of  this  church  in  the  Old 
Testament,  "The  Lord  hath  chosen  Zion;  he  hath 
desired  it  for  his  habitation;  this  is  my  rest  Tor  ever; 
here  will  I  dwell,  for  I  have  desired  it;"  has  likewise 
ordained  the  membership  of  the  infants  of  believers 
in  this  church.  This  is  the  important  fact  on  which 
tlie  argument  of  the  Lectures  rests;  and  this  fact 
you  cannot  deny. 

A  question  then  naturally  arises:  Does  this  church 
of  which  infants  were  at  first  constituted  members, 
still  exist?  The  Lectures  reply  in  the  affirmative, 
and  you  will  not  deny  it.  Well,  if  the  church  of 
God,  of  which  infants  were  divinely  constituted 
members,  still  exists,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible 
that  infants  are  still  entitled  to  membership  in  the 
church,  unless  it  can  be  made  appear  that  God  who 
conferred  the  right  has  taken  it  away.  This  you 
cannot  do,  and  have  not  the  courage  to  attempt. 
Our  conclusion  then  remains  unshaken. 

It  is  really  amusing  to  see,  that  while  Mr.  Wil- 
liams affects  to  think  lightly  of  this  argument,  and 
tries  to  persuade  the  credulous  reader  to  laugh  at  it, 
he  himself,  when  he  occasionally  looks  at  it  from  a 
distance,  fairly  writhes  under  its  withering  power. 
He  accordingly  endeavors  more  than  once,  to  work 
his  courage  up  to  the  fighting  point,  and  give  it  bat- 
tle. An  effort  of  this  kind,  the  reader  may  see  on 
page  14.  To  admit  the  identity  of  the  church  of 
God  in  all  ages,  would  be  fatal  to  his  system;  and 
yet  to  deny  in  plain  language,  so  manifest  a  Scriptu- 
ral truih,  would  be  to  render  himself  ridiculous  in 


19 

the  estimation  of  all  intelligent  christians.  Some- 
thing like  a  denial,  however,  is  repeatedly  made  to 
keep  up  the  show  of  opposition  to  the  argument  of 
the  Lectures.  For  example :  The  argument  is, 
"The  church  of  God  is  the  same  under  every  dis- 
pensation." But,  says  the  "Reply,"  with  a  great 
appearance  of  intrepidity,  "It  can  never  be  shown 
that  the  Jewish  nation  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
are  the  same."  Wonderful  discovery!  But  who 
ever  thought  or  said  that  they  were  the  same.  Can 
it  not,  however,  be  shown  that  the  church  of  God, 
which  the  Lamb  slain,  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  hath  redeemed  by  his  blood,  is  the  same  un- 
der both  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensation? — 
This  is  the  point,  Mr.  Williams;  and  if  you  think 
you  have  strength  and  courage  sufficient  to  shake 
this  position,  come  forward  with  your  artillery. 

Mr.  Williams  seems  to  have  been  very  sensible 
himself,  that  he  had  not  met  the  argument.  And 
therefore  he  makes  another  effort  to  arouse  his  latent 
energies,  and  he  adds  with  a  tone  of  defiance,  "1  do 
deny  that  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish  theocracy 
and  that  of  the  christian  church  are  one."  Gentle 
reader,  mark  the  expression!  "The  constitution  of 
the  Jewish  theocracy  and  that  of  the  christian 
church!"  The  Lectures  maintain  that  the  church  of 
God  is  one.  The  "Reply"  endeavors  to  refute  the 
argument,  by  denying  that  the  "constitution  of  the 
Jevvish  theocracy  and  that  of  the  christian  church 
are  one!"  How  this  valorous  knight  brandishes  his 
sword  when  there  is  no  foe  in  sight!  Who  ever 
maintained  that  the  "constitution  of  the  Jewish  the- 
ocracy and  that  of  the  christian  church  are  one?" 
The  very  thought  is  ridiculous.  There  is  certainly 
Mothinor   lii^e  it   in  the   Lectures.     Whv   then  does 


20 

Mr.  Williams,  as  an  honest  man,  try  to  induce  liis 
readers  to  suppose  that  the  Lectures  take  such 
ground?  Does  it  look  as  though  his  object  was  the 
elucidation  of  truth  and  the  overthrow  of  error] 

After  travelling  through  regions  of  smoke  over 
some  seventeen  pages,  which  are  devoted  to  my  first 
argument,  the  "Reply"  seems  to  think  it  necessary 
to  come  to  some  conclusion;  and  accordingly,  near 
the  bottom  of  page  thirty,  we  find  the  following 
words:  "From  these  passages,  it  is  clearly  proved 
that  the  former  dispensation  or  church  state  ceased." 
And  is  this  the  point,  Mr.  Williams,  which  you  have 
been  laboring  so  hard  and  so  long  to  prove;  that  the 
former  dispensation  has  ceased?  Whether  you  have 
proved  it  or  not,  it  is  undoubtedly  the  truth.  Hut 
then,  my  dear  sir,  it  is  not  only  a  truth  which  does 
not  militate  against  my  argument,  but  adds  much  to 
its  force.  The  Lectures  every  where  take  the 
ground  that  the  former  dispensation  has  passed 
away,  and  a  new  and  brighter  dispensation  has  suc- 
ceeded. Under  the  tormer  dispensation,  the  church 
is  compared  by  the  apostle,  to  a  minor  who  is  yet 
under  tutors  and  governors,  until  the  time  appointed 
of  the  father.  Her  light  and  privileges,  were  then 
greatly  circumscribed.  But  it  is  now  the  happiness 
of  the  church,  to  live  under  a  milder  and  more  be- 
nignant dispensation,  under  which  her  privileges  are 
greatly  enlarged.  But  even  in  the  state  of  her  mi- 
nority, the  children  of  believers  were  connected  with 
the  church.  Much  more  do  believers  enjoy  this 
privilege  now,  since  the  darkness  of  the  former  dis- 
pensation is  past,  and  the  true  light  shineth. 

So  much,  then,  ibr  Mr.  Williams'  "Reply"  to  my 
first  argument.  And  when  the  whole  of  his  re- 
marks are  taken  together,  and  the  chaff  is  separated 


21 

from  the  wheat,  there  is  more  said  for  its  confirma- 
tion, than  for  its  overthrow. 

The  Lectures  take  the  position,  that  with  the 
change  of  dispensation  the  external  sign  of  mem- 
bership in  the  church  is  changed.  It  will  be  admit- 
ted by  all,  that  circumcision  was  the  divinely  ap- 
pointed sign  of  connection  with  the  church  of  God, 
under  the  former  dispensation.  It  will  also  be  ad- 
mitted, that  this  institution  no  longer  occupies  a 
place  among  the  ordinances  of  the  church.  The 
Lectures  maintain,  that  baptism  has  supplied  its 
place;  and  consequently  that,  as  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers had  a  right  to  circumcision,  they  are  now 
proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

To  this  conclusion  the  "Reply"  is  most  fiercely 
opposed,  and  to  supply  the  want  of  argument,  draws 
most  liberally  upon  bold  and  extravagant  assertion. 
Take  the  following  specimen :  "From  the  nature  of 
the  institutions  of  circumcision  and  baptism,  it  is 
utterly  impossible  that  one  could  be  placed  in  the 
room  of  the  other.  They  are  totally  dissimilar; 
they  agree  in  nothing  more  than  any  other  two 
things  of  which  we  can  form  a  conception."  Any 
person  who  possesses  but  a  very  limited  knowledge 
of  divine  truth,  can  at  once  perceive  that  these  are 
sweeping  and  extravagant  assertions,  made  without 
any  regard  to  palpable  facts.  Circumcision  and 
baptism,  totally  dissimilar!  Agree  in  nothing  more 
than  any  other  two  things,  of  which  we  can  form  a 
conception!  Do  they  not  agree  in  this,  that  they 
are  ordinances  which  God  instituted  for  the  benefit 
of  his  church?  Do  they  not  agree  in  this,  that  they 
are  both  external  signs,  which  are  significant  of 
spiritual  blessings?  We  can  form  a  conception  of 
truth  and  falsehood.     Is  there  no  more  agreement 


22 

between  circumcision  and  baptism,  than  between 
truth  and  falsehood?  We  can  form  a  conception  of 
horse-racing  and  of  the  sanctification  of  the  Sabbath. 
Do  circumcision  and  baptism  agree  in  nothing,  more 
than  do  horse-racing  and  the  sanctification  of  the 
Lord's  day?  Mr.  Williams!  It  is  absolutely  a 
shame  for  a  man,  who  styles  himself  the  pastor  of 
the  First  baptized  church  of  Pittsburgh,  to  write  and 
publish  such  siufF. 

After  having  made  the  above  unfounded  and  ex- 
travagant assertion,  the  "Reply"  proceeds  to  enume- 
rate some  seventeen  points  of  difterence  between  cir- 
cumcision and  baptism.  It  would  be  a  very  easy 
matter  to  enumerate  as  many  more  points  of  dis- 
similitude between  these  two  ordinances.  But  what 
have  these  ditferences  with  regard  to  circumstances, 
to  do  with  the  argument?  The  two  institutions  may 
differ  much,  and  yet  the  one'  may  be  abolished  and 
the  other  under  a  new  dispensation  may  supply  its 
place.  And  though  there  were  a  thousand  particu- 
lars in  which  circumcision  and  baptism  differ,  still 
it  is  no  less  true  that  there  is  a  coincidence  between 
them,  in  those  important  points,  which  are  essential 
to  the  argument  of  the  Lectures.  In  the  following 
important  particulars  circumcision  and  baptism 
agree : 

1.  They  are  alike  initiatory  rites  of  the  church 
of  God.  Under  the  former  dispensation,  when  an 
individual  renounced  paganism  and  embraced  the 
true  religion,  it  was  by  circumcision  that  he  was  re- 
cognized as  belonging  to  the  church  of  God.  And 
now  when  one  comes  out  of  the  world  and  makes  a 
profession  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  it  is  by  baptism 
that  he  is  recognized  as  belonging  to  the  household 
of  faith. 


23 

2.  They  both  denote  the  necessity  of  a  change  of 
heart.     Deut.  30:6;  John  3:5. 

3.  They  are  both  significant  of  the  way  of  par- 
don and  acceptance  with  God,  through  the  right- 
eousness of  Jesus  Christ.    Rom.  4:11;   Acts  2:38. 

Since,  then,  there  is  this  remarkable  coincidence 
between  these  two  divine  institutions,  and  since  the 
one  is  confessedly  abolished,  the  conclusion  is  that 
the  other  has  supplied  its  place. 

Before  1  dismiss  this  subject,  let  me  request  the 
reader  to  observe,  that  Mr.  Williams,  in  his  zeal  to 
represent  circumcision  as  an  institution  of  inferior 
importance,  not  only  draws  a  contrast  between  it 
and  baptism,  but  he  even  indulges  what  I  can  regard 
in  no  other  light  than  a  spirit  of  profanity.  He 
speaks  repeatedly  in  a  sneering  manner  of  the  "pre- 
cious privilege"  of  circumcision.  Examples  may 
be  seen  on  pages  fifteen  and  twenty-nine.  In  an 
avowed  infidel,  it  would  be  in  character  to  speak  in 
this  manner  of  an  ordinance  of  God.  But  that  a 
christian  minister  should  allow  himself  to  speak  in 
this  manner  of  the  divinely  appointed  sign  of  God's 
covenant  with  his  people,  may  well  excite  the  sur- 
prise of  every  serious  mind.  Is  it  a  light  matter  for 
the  God  of  blessedness  and  glory  to  condescend  ta 
establish  a  covenant  with  sinful  man,  in  which  he 
declares,  "I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed 
after  thee?"  Is  it  a  small  matter,  that  in  considera- 
tion of  man's  weakness  and  imperfection,  he  fur- 
ther condescended  to  appoint  a  visible  sign  of  this 
covenant?  And  shall  a  worm  of  the  dust  dare  to 
speak  lightly  of  an  interest  in  this  covenant,  or  treat 
with  contempt  the  appointed  sign  by  which  the  cov- 
enant was  confirmed?  Let  (he  potsherds  strive  with 
the  potsherds  of  the  earth;  but  wo  unto  him  that 
striveth  with  his  Maker. 


CHAPTER  in. 

l-tlE  LANGUAGE  OF  OUK  LORD  AND  OF  HIS  APOSTLES 
ACCORDS  WITH  THE  SUPPOSITION,  THAT  THE  RE- 
LATION BETWEEN  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  CHILD- 
REN OF  (JOD's  PEOPLE,  REMAINS  THE  SAME  UNDER 
THE  GOSPEL  DISPENSATION. 

It  may  be  proper  here,  that  the  reader  should  be 
warned,  in  relation  to  a  species  of  unfairness,  in  the 
manner  of  meeting  the  argument  in  support  of  in- 
fant baptism,  which  is  chargeable  upon  many  Baptist 
writers,  and  upon  the  author  of  the  Reply,  among 
others.  They  take  up  these  arguments,  in  an  insu- 
lated form,  where  they  are  essentially  connected 
and  where  they  are  mutually  dependent  upon  each 
other.  Taken  together,  they  form  a  chain  which 
cannot  be  broken;  but  if  the  different  links  which 
compose  the  chain  be  separated  from  each  other,  of 
course  they  will  not  answer  the  end  for  which  the 
chain  is  intended. 

In  pleading  the  cause  of  our  children,  we  place 
much  reliance  upon  the  argument  which  is  drawn 
from  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  the  Father 
of  all  true  believers.  But  what  do  we  propose  to 
establish  by  this  argument?  Not  directly,  the  right 
of  infant  baptism;  but  an  important  principle  on 
which  that  right  is  founded.  It  is  then  disingenuous 
and  unfair  to  meet  this  argument  by  uttering  such 
3 


26 

exclamations  as  the  following:  "What  has  the  law 
of  circumcision  to  do  with  infant  baptism?"  "It  is 
strange  that  men  would  go  to  the  Old  Testament 
in  search  of  baptism!" 

The  question  with  which  we  are  now  concerned, 
is  not — does  this  argument  directly  establish  the 
right  of  infant  baptism? — but,  does  it  prove  the  point 
for  the  establishment  of  which  it  is  adduced?  It 
might  be  ridiculous  to  regard  it  as  proving  one 
thing,  while  it  very  conclusively  establishes  another 
thing,  which  is  intimately  connected  with  the  point 
in  dispute.  It  may  be  an  important  link,  though  it 
may  not  be  the  entire  chain. 

If  then  it  be  possible  to  get  the  author  of  the 
"Reply,"  to  understand  an  argument  which  he  does 
not  know  how  to  answer,  I  would  say  to  him,  the 
question  which  the  Lectures  propose  to  decide  by  a 
reference  to  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  is 
simply  this:  When  a  visible  church  was  set  up  in 
the  family  of  Abraham,  were  his  infant  seed  consti- 
tuted members  of  it,  and  had  they,  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, a  right  to  the  external  sign  of  membership? 
My  argument  rests  on  the  affirmative;  and  it  con- 
cludes, that  if  God  once  constituted  the  infants  of 
believers  members  of  his  church,  and  gave  them  a 
right  to  the  appointed  sign  of  membership,  they  are 
still  members  and  still  enjoy  the  right.  The  first 
thing  which  the  "Reply"  says  of  this  argument 
seems  to  be  designed  to  make  it  appear  ridiculous, 
by  entirely  misrepresenting  the  purpose  for  which  it 
is  employed.  "To  every  intelligent  mind,"  says  the 
"Reply,"  "the  notion  that  a  New  Testament  ordi- 
nance is  to  be  learned  from  the  Old  Testament 
writings,  must  seem,  to  say  the  leabl,  very  singular." 
To  every  honorable  man  it  must  seem,  to  say  the 


27 

least,  a  very  pitiful  thing  in  a  writer  to  pervert  the 
design  of  an  argunnent  which  he  finds  it  difficult  to 
meet.  If  there  is  any  thing  defective  about  the  ar- 
gument, let  its  weak  points  be  exposed.  Are  the 
premises  admitted]  Did  God  establish  a  visible 
church  in  the  family  of  Abraham?  Did  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  through  Isaac,  constitute  the  visible 
church  of  God?  Did  not  God  appoint  a  visible  sign 
of  connection  with  this  church?  Did  not  the  God  of 
Abraham  recognise  his  infant  seed  as  members  of 
this  church,  and  appoint  that  they  should  receive  the 
sign  of  membership?  To  all  these  questions,  the 
Lectures  reply  in  the  affirmative;  and  will  Mr.  Wil- 
liams say  no!  to  any  one  of  them?  If,  then,  the 
premises  be  correct,  they  will  justify  some  conclu- 
sion. And  what  is  the  legitimate  conclusion?  The 
Lectures  argue,  that  if  God  once  conferred  upon 
the  children  of  believers,  a  right, — (not  to  baptism; 
for  we  have  not  yet  reached  that  point  in  the  argu- 
ment, but  a  right,) — to  membership  in  his  church, 
no  man  may  take  this  right  from  them.  Conse- 
quently, if  Mr.  Williams  chooses  to  exclude  the 
children  of  believers  from  all  connection  with  the 
church  of  God,  he  is  bound  to  produce  authority 
from  the  New  Testament  to  prove  that  a  privilege 
once  bestowed  has  been  taken  away.  And  how 
does  he  discharge  the  obligation?  He  tries  to  make 
a  jest  of  the  idea  that  circumcision  was  a  "privi- 
lege!*' It  was  the  token  of  God's  covenant  with  his 
people..  It  was  to  every  true  Israelite  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed sign,  that  the  God  of  Abraham  was  his  God. 
But  "we  have  seen,"  says  the  "Reply,"  page  thirty- 
two,  "that  the  rite  was  a  bloody  and  painful  one,  not 
a  precious  privilege,  not  a  seal  of  righteousness  to 
any  but  Abraham,  not  a  sign  of  spiritual  character." 


28 

"We  have  seen!"  You  have  said  all  this,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams; and,  in  speaking  in  this  manner,  you  have 
used  language  much  more  appropriate  to  an  enemy 
of  our  holy  religion,  than  to  a  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel. "We  have  seen!"  What?  That  it  is  not  a 
precious  privilege,  to  have  the  God  of  Abraham  as 
my  God!  Not  a  privilege  to  be  a  partaker  of  the 
sign,  which  God  appointed  to  be  a  token  of  my  in- 
terest ill  him  as  my  God!  And  how  did  Mr.  Wil- 
liams see  that  circumcision  was  "not  a  seal  of  right- 
eousness to  any  but  Abraham?"  There  is  certainly 
no  such  thing  revealed  in  the  Bible;  and  if  Mr, 
Williams  has  seen  it,  he  must  have  been  introduced 
into  some  new  field  of  observation.  The  apostle  in- 
forms us  that  Abraham  "received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
which  he  had,  being  uncircumcised."  After  stating 
the  fact,  that  Abraham  received  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision, the  apostle  adds,  by  way  of  explanation  of 
the  import  of  this  sign,  that  it  was  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith.  The  import  of  the  sign  in 
every  case  was  the  same,  and  to  every  descendant 
of  Abraham  who  was  a  partaker  of  the  faith  of 
Abraham,  it  was  a  seal  of  the  same  blessing,  name- 
ly, of  that  righteousness  of  Christ  which  is  received 
by  faith,  and  which  is  the  only  ground  of  a  sinner's 
justification  before  God.  As  to  the  fond  conceit,  that 
circumcision  was  "not  a  seal  of  righteousness  to 
any  but  Abraham;"  that  is  a  specimen  of  the  the- 
ology of  Samuel  Williams,  not  of  Paul  the  apostle. 
After  concluding  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and  having  proved 
that  the  children  of  believers  were  regarded  as  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  church;  and  having  moreover 
proved  that  the  church  is  still  the  same,  though  a 


29 

change  of  dispensation  has  taken  place,  the  Lec- 
tures proceed  to  the  examination  of  the  Scriptures 
of  the  New  Testament.  And  the  remark  is  made, 
that  "it  is  unreasonable  to  demand  positive  and  ex- 
press proof  from  the  New  Testament,  to  show  that 
the  children  of  believers  are  connected  with  the 
church  of  Christ."  The  demand  is  pronounced  un- 
reasonable, because  the  point  had  already  been 
proved  by  the  authority  of  God  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. If  then  God  has  already  made  known  his 
will  as  to  the  connection  between  the  children  of  his 
people  and  his  church;  if  he  has  already  in  a  plain 
and  explicit  manner,  declared  it  to  be  his  pleasure 
that  the  infant  seed  of  believers  should  be  regarded 
as  members  of  his  church,  and  that  the  sign  of  their 
membership  should  be  administered  to  them,  then  is 
it  not  unreasonable;  nay,  is  it  not  presumptuous  in 
man  to  say,  "1  must  have  positive  proof  of  all  this 
from  the  New  Testament,  before  I  will  receive  it?" 
The  Lectures  pronounce  such  a  demand  unreason- 
able; but  at  the  same  time  contend  that  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles  distinctly  recognise  the  membership 
of  the  children  of  believers  in  the  visible  church. 

To  prevent  confusion,  and  to  present  the  subject 
in  a  plain  and  simple  manner  to  the  mind  of  the 
reader,  permit  me  here  to  call  his  attention  to  a  dis- 
tinction between  two  things  which  must  not  be  con- 
founded, namely,  a  right  to  membership,  and  the 
sign  of  membership  in  the  church  of  God.  It  is 
the  object  of  the  Lectures,  by  the  first  argument 
which  is  adduced  in  support  of  infant  baptism,  to 
make  it  appear,  that  by  divine  appointment,  the  in- 
fants of  believers  had  under  the  former  dispensation 
a  right  to  membership,  and  also  that  by  the  same 
authority  they  were  partakers  of  the  sign  of  con- 
3* 


30 

nection  witli  ihe  cliurch  of  God;  and  from  these 
premises  to  infer,  that  they  still  have  a  right  to 
mentibership,  and  are  to  be  regarded  as  entitled  to 
the  sign  of  membership.  In  so  far  as  the  reasoning 
is  concerned,  it  matters  not  what  may  be  the  exter- 
nal sign  of  connection  with  the  church,  whether  it 
may  be  circumcision  or  baptism,  or  something  else, 
they  who  have  a  right  to  membership,  have  a  right 
to  the  appointed  sign  of  membership. 

Under  the  former  dispensation,  the  church  was 
authorized  to  expect  a  great  increase  of  light  and 
enlargement  of  her  privileges,  in  connection  with 
the  appearance  of  the  Messiah.  She  is  consequent- 
ly called  to  rejoice  in  anticipation  of  his  advent. 
"Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion;  shout,  O 
daughter  of  Jerusalem;  behold,  thy  King  cometh 
unto  thee;  he  is  just,  and  having  salvation;  lowly, 
and  riding  upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt  the  foal  ot 
an  ass."*  "Behold,  the  Lord  God  will  come  with 
strong  hand,  and  his  arm  shall  rule  for  him;  behold, 
his  reward  is  with  him,  and  his  work  before  him- 
He  shall  feed  his  flock  like  a  shepherd;  he  shah 
gather  the  lambs  with  his  arms^  and  cari'y  them  in 
his  bosom.'^'\  Such  is  the  comforting  language  which 
the  prophets  employ,  while  they  direct  the  church  tc 
look  forward  lo  the  coming  of  her  glorious  King, 
and  to  rejoice  in  the  blessings  which  he  should  be- 
stow. Does  this  language  intimate,  that  when  the 
Shepherd  of  Israel  should  appear,  the  children  ot 
the  church  should  suffer  any  diminution  of  their 
privileges?     Surely   not!     He  shall  gather  the 

LAMBS    WITH    KIS    ARMS,  AJVD    CARRY    THEM    IN    HIS 

jiosoM.     Now,  let  US  examine  the  New  Testament, 
•    *Zech.  9:9.  t  Isaiah  40:10,11. 


81 

and  see  whether  our  Lord  has  not  manifested  all' 
that  kind  regard  for  the  children  of  his  people 
which  prophecy  had  taught  them  to  expect.  That 
he  did,  the  Lectures  argue  from  Matthew  19:14: 
"Suffer  little  children  and  forbid  them  not  to  come 
unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
The  reader  is  particularly  desired  to  keep  in  view 
the  position  which  the  Lectures  profiose  to  establish 
by  these  interesting  words  of  the  Redeemer.  It  is 
not,  then,  directly  the  right  of  infant  baptism.  The 
Lectures  expressly  state,  that  "the  subject  of  bap- 
tism is  not  mentioned  in  this  passage,  nor  is  there 
any  thing  here  said,  with  regard  to  the  right  of  in- 
fants to  this  seal  of  God's  covenant."  The  precise 
point  which  these  words  are  adduced  to  establish  is, 
that  our  Lord  here  recognises  the  riglit  of  the  chil- 
dren of  believers  to  membership  in  his  visible 
church.  Prophecy  had  foretold,  that  the  Messiah 
woidd  gather  the  lambs  with  his  arms  and  carry 
them  in  his  bosom.  And  on  this  occasion  when 
certain  parents  brought  their  little  children  to  him 
to  receive  his  benediction,  he  took  them  up  in  his 
arms  and  blessed  them,  saying,  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  The  Lectures  maintain  that  the 
phrase,  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  here  signifles  the 
visible  church  of  Cfuist  on  earth.  Then  the  gen- 
eral import  of  our  Lord's  declaration  will  be,  that 
little  children  may  be  regarded  as  members  of  his 
church.  And  if  their  membership  in  his  church  be 
established,  it  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence 
that  they  have  a  right  to  the  sign  of  menibership, 
which  is  baptism.  The  right  of  infant  baptism  is 
not  directly  taught  in  these  words;  but  a  principle  is 
established,  from  which  the  right  of  infant  baptism 
is  the  legitimate  conclusion.     And  let  me  add,  that 


:V2 

a  just  inlerenc.e  from  a  principle  nuisl  always  be 
irue,  provided  the  principle  tVom  which  it  is  drawn 
is  scriptural. 

Now  how  does  the  author  of  the  "Reply"  nneet 
this  argument?  Why,  the  first  words  to  which  he 
gives  utterance  are — "We  could  quote  scores  of 
Pedobaptist  authors  against  the  Dr.  on  this  subject." 
Scores  of  them!  It  will  be  seen  that  the  Pastor  of 
^Hlie  First  Baptized  Church'^  of  Pittsburgh,  is  a 
man  of  extensive  reading. 

But  suppose  Mr.  Williams  should  do  all  that  he 
says  he  could^  what  would  he  accomplish?  Be 
might  prove  that  some  other  men  give  a  different 
interpretation  of  this  passage,  from  that  which  is 
given  by  me;  bgt  this  would  not  prove  that  my  in- 
terpretation is  wrong.  The  Lectures,  it  may  be  re- 
marked, do  not  undertake  to  decide  the  point  in  dis- 
pute, by  the  authority  of  great  names,  but  by  an 
appeal  to  the  word  of  iGod.  The  question  with 
which  the  Lectures  are  concerned,  is  not,  what  are 
the  opinions  of  men?  but,  vvhat  are  the  principles 
taught  in  the  Scriptures  of  truth? 

Among  the  "scores  of  Pedobaptist  authors,"  which 
this  man  of  extensive  reading  could  quote  against 
rne,  Dr.  Doddridge  is  one.  VVell,  lot  us  go  and  see 
what  this  respectable  writer  says  in  opposition  to 
me.  If  the  rei^der  will  turn  to  Doddridge's  Exposi- 
tor, he  will  lind  the  following  exposition  of  this  pas- 
sage: Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God;  persons  of 
such  a  character  are  the  true  subjects  of  my  king- 
dom, and  heirs  of  eternal  glory,  to  which  many  lit- 
tle children  are  received;  anrl  in  token  of  it,  the 
children,  of  heliemng  parents  are  to  he  admitted 
into  my  church  by  haptism,.^''  This  is  a  specimen, 
gentle    reader,    of  the  "scores    of  Pedobaptist    au- 


33 

thors,"  whom  Mr.  Williams  could  quote  against  me! 
The  Lectures  undertake  to  prove  by  this  passage  of 
Scripture,  that  our  Lord  here  recognises  the  mem- 
bership of  little  chidren  in  his  church,  and  conse- 
quently, their  right  to  baptism.  And  Doddridge, 
in  his  Exposition,  says,  ^'■the  diildren  of  believing 
parents  are  to  be  admitted  into  my  church  by  bap- 
tism.^'' And  yet  this  blundering  writer  would  have 
the  reader  to  believe,  that  this  Pedobaptist  author  is 
against  me.  The  truth  is,  as  I  shall  have  occasion 
to  show  more  fully  hereafter,  Mr.  Williams  rnakes 
a  display  of  familiarity  with  writers,  whom  he  has 
either  never  read,  or  has  examined  so  superficially, 
that  he  would  need  to  read  them  again,  before  he 
undertakes  to  say  any  thing  about  them. 

But  after  all,  it  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence 
whether  Doddridge  gives  an  exposition  of  the  pas- 
sage, in  accordance  with  that  contained  in  the  Lec- 
tures, or  in  opposition  to  it.  The  question  is  simply 
this:  is  the  exposition  given  in  the  Lectures  correct] 
The  author  of  the  "Reply"  insinuates  that  it  cannot 
be  correct;  and  as  an  evidence  that  the  view  taken 
of  the  passage  in  the  Lectures  is  singular,  he  adds, 
"I  believe  no  one  has  ever  before  pretended,  that 
this  proves  infant  baptism."  On  first  reading  this 
sentence  my  va/iity  was  in  no  small  degree  flat- 
tered to  find,  that  among  all  the  respectable  writers 
on  this  subject,  I  had  the  honor  to  be  the  first  who 
discovered  the  strong  argument,  which  these  words 
of  our  Lord  afford,  in  support  of  infant  baptism. 
But  my  vanity  had  scarcely  time  to  be  excited, 
until  it  was  cooled  by  the  reflection,  that  Mr.  Wil- 
liams,  in  the  excess  of  his  kindness,  had  paid  me  a 
compliment  to  which  1  am  by  no  means  entitled. 
The  author  of  the  "Reply"  would  have  his  readers 


84 

to  suppose,  that  he  is  familiar  with  books;  for  he 
says  he  could  quote  "scores  of  Pedobaptist  authors" 
on  one  single  point.  Will  Mr.  Williams  have  the 
goodness  to  name  a  single  author,  who  has  written 
a  treatise  in  support  of  infant  baptism,  from  the 
days  of  Tertullian  down  to  the  present  time,  who 
has  not  regarded  this  text  as  I'urnishing  an  impor- 
tant argument  in  its  favor?  On  page  73  of  the 
Lectures,  the  reader  may  see  the  historical  evidence 
adduced  to  show,  that  in  the  second  century  the 
words  in  question  were  regarded  as  favoring  the 
claims  of  infant  baptism.  And  no  respectable  writer 
has  ever  employed  his  pen  in  defence  of  this  dear 
privilege  of  our  children,  who  has  not  considered 
the  declaration  of  our  Lord,  of  such  is  the  king' 
dom  of  heaven,  as  having  an  important  bearing  upon 
the  subject. 

But,  after  endeavoring  to  persuade  the  reader  to 
regard  the  application  which  the  Lectures  make  of 
this  portion  of  Scripture,  as  singular  and  unnatural, 
the  author  of  the  "Keply"  seems  to  be  very  sensible 
that  all  reflecting  persons  would  perceive  that  he  was 
closing  his  eyes  against  a  difficulty,  rather  than  re- 
moving it.  And,  accordingly,  he  for  once  endea- 
vors to  meet  the  argument,  by  assailing  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  passage  given  in  the  Lectures.  "The 
interpretation  of  the  phrase,  'kingdom  of  heaven,'  " 
says  the  "Reply,"  "is  not  sustained."  And  what  is 
the  interpretation  which  the  Lectures  give  of  this 
phrase?  The  reader  may  see  it  on  page  fifty-one. 
"By  the  phrase,  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  employ- 
ed in  the  New  Testament,  is  usually  to  be  under- 
stood the  visible  church,  which  is  the  kingdom  of 
Christ  on  earth."  In  confirmation  of  the  correct- 
ness of  this   interpretation,  the  Lectures  have  fur- 


35 

nished  several  examples,  the  number  of  which,  if 
necessary,  could  be  multiplied  to  almost  any  extent. 
Indeed,  this  interpretation  is  so  well  established,  and 
so  generally  received,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  add 
any  further  confirmation.  And  1  doubt  not  that 
even  the  author  of  the  "Reply"  himself  will  admit 
that  the  phrase,  "the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  more 
commonly  applies  to  that  portion  of  our  Lord's  spir- 
itual kingdom  which  is  on  earth,  or  in  other  words, 
his  visible  church.  He  seems  however  to  deny  that 
this  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  in  the  i)assage  be- 
fore us,  and  also,  in  another  to  which  I  have  refer- 
red. Matt.  8:11,  12.  If  I  were  to  adopt  Mr.  Wil- 
liams' plan,  I  might  here  bring  forward  Dr.  Gill,  the 
most  eminent  Baptist  Expositor,  against  him.  On 
the  words,  "The  children  of  the  kingdom  shall  be 
cast  out,"  Gill  remarks:  "The  Jews,  who  were  sub- 
jects of  the  kingdom  and  commonwealth  of  Israel, 
and  who  were  also  in  the  church  of  God  which  is 
^his  kingdom  on  earth,  shall  be  cast  out — out  of  the 
land  of  Israel,  as  they  were  in  a  few  years  after, 
and  out  of  the  church  of  God.''''  This  Baptist  expo- 
sitor, it  will  be  seen,  understood  our  Lord  as  here 
teaching  that  the  unbelieving  Jews  should  be  cast 
out,  not  from  heaven,  into  which  they  had  not  been 
admitted,  but  out  of  the  church  of  God,  and  the  be- 
lieving Gentiles  should  be  introduced.  And  so  all 
men  of  sense  will  understand  the  passage. 

Now,  let  us  see  the  interpretation,  the  paternity 
of  which,  I  think,  belongs  of  right  to  the  pastor  of 
the  '■''first  baptized  church''''  of  Pittsburgh.  It  may 
be  seen  on  page  thirty-two  of  the  "Reply."  "Our 
Savior  represents  persons  of  certain  characters,  as 
endeavoring  to  enter  the  gateway  of  heaven,  who, 


36 

when  they  get  within  the  entrance,  are  found  to  be 
destitute  of  the  wedding  garment,  and  are  therefore 
cast  out."  It  might  be  sufficient  to  say  in  reply  to 
this  very  singular  jumble  of  discordant  ideas,  that 
our  Savior  has  not,  in  any  part  of  the  Bible,  made 
such  a  representation  as  is  here  imputed  to  him. 
^'- The  gateway  of  heaven!''''  There  is  no  such  thing 
mentioned  in  all  the  Bible.  Our  Lord  does  indeed 
exhort  all,  to  "strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate;" 
but  he  does  not  represent  any  as  being  cast  out  after 
they  "get  within  the  entrance."  This  is  another 
specimen  of  Mr.  Williams'  theology.  "The  wed- 
ding garment"  is  mentioned  but  once  by  our  Lord, 
and  that  is  in  the  parable,  in  which  he  illustrates  the 
state  of  things  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  by  the 
similitude  of  a  marriage  entertainment  which  a  king 
made  for  his  son.  This  marriage  entertainment  sig- 
nificantly represents  the  abundance  and  the  excel- 
lency of  the  provision  made  for  sinners  in  the  gos- 
pel; and  all  of  every  description,  even  the  chief  of 
sinners,  are  invited  to  come  and  partake  of  it. 
Among  those  who  had  professedly  accepted  the  invi- 
tation and  had  come  to  the  gospel  feast,  the  king, 
when  he  came  in  to  see  the  guests,  discovered  one 
who  had  not  on  a  wedding  garment.  And  he  was 
cast  out.  But  from  what  place  was  he  cast  out? 
Not  from  heaven,  most  assuredly;  for  he  had  not 
yet  been  admitted  into  that  holy  place;  but  from  the 
gospel  feast.  It  is  manifest,  then,  that  when  the  au- 
thor of  the  "Reply"  represents  our  Lord  as  saying 
that  some,  when  they  get  within  the  entrance  of 
heaven,  are  found  to  be  destitute  of  the  wedding 
garment,  and  are  therefore  cast  out,  he  speaks  with- 
out authority.     Does  Mr.  Williams  read  tlie  Bible 


37 

as  carelessly  as  he  seems  to  have  read  Doddridge, 
whom  he  represents  to  be  against  me,  while  he  ex- 
presses the  very  thing  for  which  I  am  pleading? 

It  is  then  abundantly  evident,  Mr.  Williams  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding,  that  in  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion, the  phrase,  "kingdom  of  heaven,"  from  which 
the  unbelieving  Jews  were  to  be  cast  out,  and  into 
which  the  believing  Gentiles  were  to  be  introduced, 
signifies  the  visible  church  on  earth.  And  though 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  were  not  at  this  time  in 
the  visible  church,  they  had  been  in  it,  and  were 
now,  with  that  portion  of  Christ's  kingdom,  which 
is  above.  A  portion  of  that  sacred  community,  re- 
presented by  the  phrase,  "kingdom  of  heaven,"  is 
on  earth;  another  portion  of  it  is  in  heaven.  And 
hence  the  phrase  is  sometimes  employed  with  refer- 
ence to  one,  and  sometimes  to  the  other;  though,  as 
stated  in  the  Lectures,  more  commonly  it  has  respect 
to  the  church  on  earth.  A  person  may  be  connect- 
ed with  the  kingdom  on  earth,  and  yet  finally  be  cast 
out;  but  into  the  kingdom  above,  no  unclean  thing 
can  enter;  and  consequently,  none  who  are  once  ad- 
mitted, shall  ever  be  cast  out. 


CHAPTER   IV. 

AN  EXAMINATION  OF  SOME  PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE 
WHICH  HAVE  A  BEARING  UPON  THE  RIGHT  OF 
INFANT    BAPTISM. 

But,  though  it  may  be  sufficiently  manifest  that 
the  phrase,  "the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  in  many  other 
places  designates  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  it 
may  be  inquired.  Why  do  we  understand  it  in  that 
sense,  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  rather 
than  as  referring  to  that  portion  of  Christ's  kingdom 
which  is  in  heaven?  A  little  attention  to  the  object 
which  these  parents  had  in  view  in  bringing  their  in- 
fants to  our  Lord,  will  enable  us  to  give  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  this  question. 

What  then,  I  would  ask,  was  the  desire  of  these 
parents'?  Was.it,  that  the  Redeemer  would  take 
their  children  from  them,  and  receive  them  into 
heaven?  If  this  had  been  their  desire,  then  it  would 
have  been  natural  to  suppose,  that  our  Lord  design- 
ed by  the  language  which  he  used,  to  assure  them 
that  such  little  children  should  be  admitted  into 
heaven.  But  it  was  far  from  the  desire  of  these  pa- 
rents to  have  their  children  taken  from  them.  They 
brought  them  to  Christ  that  he  would  bless  them,  by 
making  them  partakers  of  the  spiritual  benefits  of 
that  kingdom  which  he  came  to  establish  on  earth. 
And  our  Lord  encourao-ed  them  in  the  most  kind 


40 

and  condeseending  rxianner,  by  assuring  them  that 
ample  provision  has  been  made  in  his  kingdom,  for 
the  children  of  his  people.  '■'-Suffer  little  children 
and  forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven^  If,  then,  we  understand 
the  expression,  "the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  as  rela- 
ting to  Christ's  kingdom  on  earth,  the  language 
which  our  Lord  employed  was  directly  adapted  to 
encourage  these  parents  in  bringing  their  children  to 
him,  which  was  evidently  his  design. 

Then  let  me  say  to  all  Christian  parents,  who  be- 
lieve that  Jesus  Christ  can  bless  both  themselves  and 
their  children  by  making  his  own  ordinances  the  ef- 
fectual means  of  salvation,  you  have  much  encour- 
agement to  bring  your  dear  children  to  him.     He 
has  not  been  so  regardless  of  your  feelings  as  to 
overlook  your  children   in  the  organisation  of  his 
kingdom.     And  though  Mr.  Williams,  who  professes 
to  be  a  minister  of  Christ,  may  chide  you,  and  tell 
you  to  take  your  "poor  babes"  away,  for  baptism 
can  be  of  no  benefit  to  them,  it  is  our  consolation  to 
know,  that  our  benevolent  Redeemer  when  on  earth, 
did  not  address  such  language  to  those  who  brought 
their  little  children  to  him,  to  obtain  his  blessing. 
No!     "He  was  much  displeased"  even  with  his  own 
disciples,  who  on   this  occasion  so  far  mistook  the 
design  of  his  mission  into  our  world,  as  to  rebuke 
the  parents  who  manifested  so  becoming  a  concern 
for  the  welfare  of  their  children.     And  it  would  be 
well  for  those  who  now  imitate  the  example  of  the 
mistaken  disciples,  in  rebuking  those  parents  who 
bring  their  children  to  Christ  in  his  own  ordinance, 
to  receive  his  blessing,   to  consider    whether   they 
have  not  cause  to  apprehend  that  the  Redeemer  will 
be  "much  displeased"  with  them. 


41 

Another  argument  which  the  Lectures  adduce  in 
support  of  the  claims  of  infant  baptism,  is  drawn 
from  the  language  which  the  apostle  Peter  addressed 
to  the  convinced  Jews  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
"Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For 
the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children.^^  The 
reader  is  desired  to  observe,  that  the  Lectures  do 
not  build  arguments  upon  the  mere  sound  of  words, 
but  endeavor  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  words 
which  are  referred  to  for  proof.  There  is  accord- 
ingly, a  good  deal  of  care  taken  to  ascertain  the 
real  import  of  the  apostle's  language. 

On  this  argument,  Mr.  Williams  breaks  out  in  the 
exclamation,  "Is  it  possible  that  the  Dr.  is  unacquaint- 
ed with  the  promise  here  spoken  of?"  I  reply,  if 
we  may  judge  from  his  book,  it  is  very  certain  that 
Mr.  Williams  is  unacquainted  with  it.  It  is  believed 
that  the  k\w  remarks  contained  in  the  Lectures  con- 
clusively show  that  the  interpretation,  which  the  au- 
thor of  the  "Reply"  would  have  us  to  adopt,  cannot 
be  correct.  And  yet,  strange  to  tell,  he  speaks  with 
as  much  boldness  and  confidence,  as  though  the 
apostle  had  in  so  many  words  pronounced  judgment 
in  his  favor!  Hear  him!  "Peter  says,  in  contradic- 
tion of  the  Dr.  'This  is  that  which  was  spoken  by 
the  prophet  Joel.'  "  A  reader  who  would  take  Mr. 
Williams'  word  for  it,  would  of  course  suppose  that 
the  apostle  made  this  declaration,  with  reference  to 
the  promise  in  question.  And  yet,  when  we  refer  to 
the  passage,  it  will  at  once  appear  that  it  is  a  mani- 
fest and  bold  perversion  of  the  apostle's  language. 
Peter  was  addressing  the  mockers,  who  said,  "These 
men  are  full  of  new  wine,"  when  he  said,  "This  is 
4* 


42 

tliat  vvliich  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel."  Acts 
2:16.  Here  the  apostle's  object  is  to  stop  the  mouths 
of  these  gainsayers  by  showing  them  that  this  mi- 
raculous effusion  of  the  Spirit,  by  which  the  apostles 
were  endowed  with  the  gift  of  tongues,  was  the  ful- 
filment of  a  phophecy  of  Joel.  "This  is  that  which 
was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel."  The  reader  will 
observe  that  there  is  nothing  said  here  about  a  pro- 
mise. It  is  Mr.  Williams  who  foists  in  the  promise 
and  puts  it  into  the  mouth  of  the  apostle,  though 
Peter  says  that  he  is  speaking  of  a  prophecy. 

By  proceeding  on  to  the  latter  part  of  the  chapter, 
the  reader  may  see  what  the  apostle  says  with  re- 
gard to  the  promise,  from  which  the  argument  of 
the  Lectures  is  derived.  It  was  addressed  to  a  very 
different  class  of  persons;  not  to  mockers,  but  to 
men  burdened  with  a  sense  of  guilt,  and  who,  deep- 
ly concerned  about  the  welfare  of  their  souls,  in- 
quired, "Men  and  brethren,  what  must  we  do?" 

Now,  I  would  seriously  ask  the  reflecting  reader, 
would  it  be  a  reply  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of 
such  anxious  inquirers,  to  inform  them  that  an  an- 
cient prophet  had  foretold  that  in  the  last  days,  the 
Spirit  in  his  miraculous  gifts  should  be  poured  out 
on  all  flesh?  No!  A  promise  leading  to  Christ,  in 
whom  there  is  redemption  through  his  blood,  even 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  is  what  is  requisite  to  speak 
peace  to  the  awakened  and  troubled  conscience. 
And  such  is  the  promise  to  which  the  apostle  directs 
the  attention  of  these  anxious  inquirers.  They  are 
assured  that  there  is  remission  of  sins  through  Jesus 
Christ,  whose  Spirit  they  that  believe  on  him  should 
receive;  and  they  are  directed  to  a  promise  contain- 
ing the  grateful  intelligence.  But  the  prophecy  of 
Joel  speaks  nothing  of  forgiveness  through  the  blood 


43 

of  Jesus;  and  consequently,  it  cannot  be  to  this  pro- 
phecy that  the  apostle  directs  these  souls  burdened 
with  a  sense  of  guilt,  for  relief. 

As  to  the  positive  assertion  of  Mr.  Williams  that 
the  apostle  Peter  says,  that  the  promise  in  question 
is  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  the  intelligent  reader  will 
perceive,  it  is  a  perfectly  gratuitous  declaration,  for 
which  there  is  not  only  no  proof,  but  which  is  di- 
rectly in  the  face  of  the  sacred  history.  In  the  one 
case  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  to  silence  gainsay- 
ers,  by  showing  them  that  the  gift  of  tongues,  with 
which  he  and  his  brethren  were  endowed,  was  con- 
ferred in  fulfilment  of  an  ancient  prophecy;  but  in 
the  other,  his  object  is  to  comfort  and  encourage  the 
awakened  and  contrite  in  heart,  by  directing  them  to 
a  promise  relative  to  the  way  of  pardon  and  accept- 
ance through  Jesus  Christ. 

It  still  remains,  however,  to  inquire  what  is  the 
promise,  to  which  the  apostle  refers.  In  relation  to 
this  matter,  Mr.  Williams  observes,  with  great  ap- 
parent gravity,  "I  hope  the  reader  of  the  Lectures 
desires  to  know  the  truth."  In  this  hope  I  most 
cordially  unite.  And  having  shown  that  the  "Re- 
ply" has  not  told  "the  truth,"  with  regard  to  what 
Peter  said,  if  the  reader  will  lend  me  his  patient  at- 
tention, I  will  endeavor  to  answer  the  question, 
What  is  "the  promise]"  of  which  the  apostle  here 
speaks.  We  shall  be  aided  in  furnishing  an  an- 
swer to  this  question,  by  considering  to  whom  it 
extends.  The  promise,  says  the  apostle,  is,  as  re- 
corded in  Acts  2:39 — 

(1)  "To  you,"  descendants  of  Abraham. 

(2)  "To  your  children," 

(3)  "To  all  that  are  afar  off,"  the  Gentiles,  "even 
as  manv  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 


44 

It  will  be  of  advantage  further  to  consider  what 
are  the  important  blessings  included  in  this  promise. 
They  are,  remission  of  sins  through  the  blood  of  Je- 
sus, and  the  gracious  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  applies  to  the  soul  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
death.     Verse  38. 

Whatever  may  be  the  promise  to  which  the  apos- 
tle refers,  the  reader  will  at  once  perceive,  that  it  is 
a  very  precious  one,  and  of  very  comprehensive  im- 
port. When  we  search  the  Scriptures,  we  find  a 
promise  with  which  these  descendants  of  the  Father 
of  the  faithful,  were  familiar;  which  was  given  to 
Abraham  at  an  early  period  in  the  history  of  the 
church;  which  has  been  dear  to  the  people  of  God 
in  every  age;  and  which  admirably  corresponds 
with  what  the  apostle  says  of  the  promise  in  ques- 
tion. "I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee."  "And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  be  blessed."  The  reader  is  respectfully  refer- 
red to  the  Lectures,  for  the  leading  reasons  in  sup- 
port of  the  position,  that  it  is  to  this  well  known 
promise  the  apostle  has  respect.  The  promise  to 
Abraham,  had  respect  to  him  and  his  children.  "A 
God  to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  But  it 
moreover  extended  to  the  Gentiles.  "In  thy  seed 
shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  That 
these  words  relate  to  those  who  are  afar  oiT,  that  is, 
the  Gentiles,  the  apostle  plainly  teaches.  "The 
Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the 
heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel 
unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be 
blessed."*  The  seed  promised  to  Abraham,  and 
through  whom  he  was  to  be  a  source  of  blessing  to 

*Galatians  3:8 


45 

the  nations  of  the  earth,  the  apostle  informs  us  was 
Christ.  And  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  was  another 
•blessing  included  in  the  promise,  is  evident  from  the 
following  declaration:  "That  the  blessing  of  Abra- 
ham might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus 
Christ;  that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit  through  faith.''''* 

Here,  then,  we  see  that  the  promise  made  to 
Abraham,  remarkably  and  very  particularly  corres- 
ponds with  the  account  which  the  apostle  gives  of 
the  promise  in  question.  It  extends  not  only  to  the 
parent,  but  to  his  seed;  not  to  the  Jew  only,  but  to 
the  Gentiles,  who  are  afar  off;  it  comprehends  Christ 
and  remission  of  sin  through  his  blood,  and  also  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who  communicates  to  the  believing  soul 
the  benefits  of  the  Redeemer's  death. 

The  precious  promise  made  to  Abraham,  I  will  be 
a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed,  which  has  made  the 
heart  of  many  a  christian  parent  to  rejoice,  is  so  ir- 
reconcilable with  Mr.  Williams'  exclusive  system, 
that  the  very  mention  of  it  seems  to  ruffle  his  tem- 
per. And,  accordingly,  in  relation  to  the  applica- 
tion, which  the  Lectures  make  of  the  promise,  he 
exclaims,  ''Is  there  no  other  promise  in  the  Bible?" 
I  am  sorry  for  your  sake,  Mr.  Williams,  that  you 
who  profess  to  be  a  minister  of  Christ,  should  esteem 
this  promise  so  lightly,  as  this  irreverent  question 
would  seem  to  indicate.  Christ  himself  is  the  great 
blessing  included  in  this  promise.  In  him  all  the 
promises  are  yea  and  amen.  He  who  can  in  truth 
say,  Christ  is  mine,  is  authorized  to  add,  all  things 
are  mine.  Though,  therefore,  there  are  other  prom- 
ises in  the  Bible,  it  may  with  propriety  be  said  that 

*GaIaf.ians  3:14. 


46 

in  this  they  are  all  included.  The  future  revelation 
of  God's  gracious  purposes  towards  his  church,  are 
the  development  of  the  unspeakably  precious  bless- 
ings comprehended  in  the  promise,  "In  thee  shall  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 

Before  I  leave  this  part  of  my  subject,  the  reader 
is  requested  to  attend  to  a  specimen  of  Mr.  Williams' 
philological  powers.  He  has  not  only  read  "scores 
of  Pedobaptist  writers,"  but  he  is  amazingly  familiar 
with  the  Greek;  and  is  not  at  all  pleased  with  me 
for  not  gratifying  my  readers  with  "one  peep  into 
the  Greek  language."  If  we  may  judge  from  the 
learning  of  their  pastor,  it  might  be  supposed  that 
the  good  people  who  compose  "the  first  baptized 
church  of  Pittsburgh,"  are  acquainted  with  as  many 
languages  as  the  apostle  could  speak  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  But,  as  the  "Reply"  savs,  "To  the  re- 
cord." 

On  page  34,  the  "Reply"  undertakes  to  show  that 
no  argument  in  favor  of  our  children  can  be  drawn 
from  the  declaration,  the  promise  is  to  your  children; 
for,  says  he,  "Children,  in  the  passage,  means  pos- 
terity, descendants.  The  Greek  word  is  not  the 
same,  which  expresses  a  state  of  infancy." 

It  is  not  my  custom,  when  preaching  the  gospej, 
to  make  a  parade  of  learning  by  speaking  to  plain 
people  in  Latin,  Greek,  or  Hebrew.  Ever  since  my 
first  entrance  into  a  pulpit,  it  has  been  a  principle  to 
which  I  have  endeavored  to  conform,  to  understand 
what  I  say  myself,  in  the  first  place,  and  then  to 
speak  in  such  a  manner  that  my  hearers  may  under- 
stand what  I  say.  However,  I  sometimes  look  into 
the  Greek.  And  if  you  please,  Mr.  Williams,  we 
will  take  up  the  Greek  Testament,  and  not  merely 
"peep"  into  it,  but  examine  it  like  men  of  under- 


47 

standing,  and  see  whether  your  authoritative  decla- 
ration will  stand  the  test.  You  say,  that  the  word 
in  question  means  "pos^eri??/,"  and  is  not  the  same 
which  expresses  a  state  of  infancy."  Now  it  so 
happens  that  the  very  first  time  the  word  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  it  has  reference  to  infants.  At 
the  birth  of  Christ,  by  the  order  of  Herod,  who 
wished  to  destroy  the  infant  Saviour,  all  the  children 
of  Bethlehem,  from  two  years  old  and  under,  were 
slain.  And  in  this  event  was  fulfiled  the  prophecy, 
*'In  Rama  was  there  a  voice  heard,  lamentation  and 
weeping,  and  great  mourning,  Rachel  weeping  for 
her  children,  and  would  not  be  comforted,  because 
they  are  not."*  You  see,  then,  that  the  word  is 
here  applied  to  children  under  two  years  of  age; 
and  I  suppose  it  will  be  admitted,  that  such  are  in 
"a  state  of  infancy."  In  his  epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  the  apostle  says,  "We  were  gentle  among 
you  even  as  a  nurse  cherisheth  her  children,"^ 
Here  the  word  is  employed  with  reference  to  chil- 
dren, who  are  yet  under  the  care  of  a  nurse.  Ex- 
amples of  the  same  general  character,  may  be  seen 
throughout  the  New  Testament.  And  now,  if  Mr. 
Williams  would  allow  me  to  tender  a  friendly  advice, 
I  would  say  to  him,  do  not  stop  with  a  "peep"  into 
the  Greek,  but  examine  it  with  some  care  before  you 
undertake  to  speak  with  such  an  air  of  authority 
with  regard  to  its  meaning.  You  remember  the 
proverb,  "He  that  is  first  in  his  own  cause,  seemeth 
just;  but  his  neighbor  cometh  and  searcheth  him." 

The  Greek  word  employed  by  the  apostle  in  the 
passage  under  consideration,  is  of  the  same  import 
with  our  English  word  children,  as  it  is  here  trans- 

*  Matthew  2:18.  1 1  Thess.  2 : 7. 


48 

lated.  This  is  well  known  to  every  one,  who  is  ac- 
quainted with  the  language.  And  no  reason  appears 
why  the  author  of  the  "Rejjly,"  should  substitute  the 
word  "posterity,"  in  the  place  of  children,  save  that 
our  translation  seems  to  rebuke  his  exclusive  system, 
which  would  cut  oft*  the  children  of  believers  from 
all  interest  in  the  precious  promise,  I  will  be  a  God 
to  thee  and  to  thy  seed. 

The  next  argument  in  support  of  the  claims  of  in- 
fant baptism,  introduced  in  the  Lectures,  is  drawn 
from  the  practice  of  the  apostles.  Brief  as  is  the 
history  of  the  primitive  church,  it  informs  us,  that 
in  repeated  instances  the  apostles  baptized  whole 
households.  And  so  far  as  we  can  learn  from  the 
sacred  narrative,  it  was  the  uniform  practice  of  the 
apostles,  when  the  head  of  a  family  professed  his 
faith  in  Christ,  and  received  baptism,  that  his  house- 
hold were  baptized  at  the  same  time.  Lydia,  whose 
heart  the  Lord  opened,  was  baptized  and  her  house- 
hold; the  jailor  who  believed  in  God  was  baptized 
and  all  his;  and  the  household  of  Stephanas  was 
baptized.  And  these  particular  instances  are  men- 
tioned in  such  a  manner  as  to  indicate  that  this  was 
the  usual  apostolic  practice. 

It  is  admitted  in  the  Lectures  that  it  is  not  said, 
that  there  were  children  in  any  of  these  households. 
Nor  is  it  pretended  that  an  argument  can  be  drawn 
from  this  fact,  recorded  in  the  history  of  apostolic 
practice,  which  would  of  itself  prove  positively  that 
the  apostles  did  baptize  the  children  of  believing 
parents.  The  language,  however,  which  the  sacred 
history  employs  in  these  instances,  is  just  such,  as 
we  would  expect  to  see  used,  in  describing  the  pro- 
gress of  the  gospel,  upon  the  principle  for  which  we 
contend;  while  it  is  not  reconcilable  with  the  princi- 


49 

pie  which  denies  the  right  of  infant  baptism.  If  one 
of  our  missionaries  while  preaching  the  gospel 
among  the  heathen,  should  be  successful  in  bringing 
a  pagan  mother  to  the  saving  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
he  would  baptize  the  mother  and  her  household,  as 
Paul  is  said  to  have  baptized  Lydia  and  her  house- 
hold. Then,  when  we  view  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  in  connection  with  the  principles  taught  in 
the  word  of  God,  relative  to  the  organization  of  the 
church,  it  furnishes  a  corroborating  argument  in 
support  of  the  conclusion,  that  they  regarded  the 
children  of  believers  as  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

That  the  terms,  house  and  household,  are  famil- 
iarly employed  in  Scripture  to  signify  a  family,  and 
therefore  to  include  children,  the  Lectures  prove  by 
examples,  and  all  reasonable  men  will  admit.  If  it 
were  necessary,  it  would  be  easy  to  add  to  the  exam- 
ples adduced  in  the  Lectures,  to  an  indefinite  extent. 
*'As  for  me  and  my  house,''''  said  Joshua,  "we  will 
serve  the  Lord."*  "The  Lord  blessed  Obed-edom 
and  all  his  hovsehold.''^'\  "The  Lord  give  mercy 
unto  the  house  of  Onesiphorus.":j: 

It  being  evident  from  these  and  similar  examples, 
that  in  the  language  of  Scripture,  a  man's  household 
signifies  his  family,  and  consequently  if  he  has 
children,  includes  them,  it  will  follow,  that  when  the 
apostles  baptized  a  man  and  his  house,  they  baptized 
his  children,  if  he  had  any.  But  still  it  may  be  a 
question  whether  there  were  any  young  children,  in 
any  of  the  households,  which  were  baptized  by  the 
apostles;  for  it  is  doubtless  a  fact  that  there  are 
households,  which  do  not  contain  any  young  chil- 
dren.    The  Lectures  argue  that  it  is  every  way  pro- 

*Josh.  24:15.       +2  Sam.  6:11.      t2  Tim.  1:16. 
5 


50 

bable  that  there  were  children  in  the  family  of  the 
jailor  and  in  that  of  Lydia,  who  were  baptized  upon 
the  ground  of  the  faith  of  their  parents,  because  the 
sacred  historian  makes  particular  mention  of  the 
faith  of  the  parents,  but  is  silent  in  relation  to  the 
faith  of  their  household.  And  they  propose  to  pro- 
duce positive  proof,  that  there  were  children  in  these 
households,  as  soon  as  any  Baptist  shall  produce 
positive  proof  that  any  of  these  families  believed  ex- 
cept the  head. 

Mr.  Williams  furiously  assails  the  position  of  the 
Lectures;  comes  forward  to  the  onset  with  a  great 
show  of  valor;  says  that  he  can  produce  positive 
proof  that  all  in  these  households  believed;  makes  a 
positive  assertion,  that  all  in  the  jailor's  house  be- 
lieved; and  then,  well  pleased  with  the  feat  which  he 
has  accomplished,  he  turns  round  and  says,  "I  have 
proved  that  all  in  the  house  believed."  Ah!  Mr. 
Williams,  if  you  could  produce  proofs,  as  readily  as 
you  can  make  bold  assertions,  you  would  be  a  for- 
midable antagonist!  But,  sir,  did  not  your  hand 
tremble  when  you  dared  to  write  the  sentence,  with 
regard  to  the  family  of  the  jailor,  ^'Here  the  Holy 
Spirit  emphatically  declares  that  all  his  house  be- 
lieved, not  by  proxy,  but  in  their  own  souls?"  page 
37.  If  one,  entirely  ignorant  of  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, should  make  such  an  assertion,  however  un- 
warranted it  would  be,  it  might  admit  of  some  apo- 
logy, in  consequence  of  a  degree  of  ambiguity 
which  results  from  the  collocation  of  the  words  in 
the  translation.  But,  you  evidently  wish  your  read- 
ers to  suppose  that  you  are  familiar  with  the  Greek. 
If,  then,  you  will  take  "a  peep"  into  the  Greek  Tes- 
tament, you  will  see  that  the  word  which  is  transla- 
ted "believed,"  is  in  the  singular  number,  and   re- 


51 

lates  to  the  jailor  himself  and  not  to  the  members  of 
his  house.  He  having  believed  in  God,  rejoiced 
with  all  his  house.  This  man  by  a  remarkable  dis- 
play of  divine  grace,  being  brought  to  a  saving 
knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  being  made  a  parta- 
ker of  a  good  hope  through  grace,  would  naturally 
rejoice  in  God  as  his  own  God  in  covenant.  And 
since  "Me  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children,'''' 
he  not  only  rejoiced  in  consequence  of  his  own  in- 
terest in  the  promise,  but  would  naturally  rejoice 
with  "all  his,"  as  being  jointly  with  himself  parta- 
kers of  the  promise. 

Had  Mr.  Williams  been  content  with  saying,  that 
in  his  opinion  the  language  of  the  sacred  historian 
would  authorize  the  conclusion,  that  all  the  members 
of  the  jailor's  house  believed,  however  much  I  may 
have  differed  with  him,  he  certainly  should  have  been 
permitted  to  enjoy  his  own  opinion.  But  to  intro- 
duce the  name  of  God,  and  to  represent  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  "emphatically  declaring"  a  thing  which 
cannot  be  made  out  by  legitimate  inference,  is  to 
display  a  spirit  which  I  forbear  to  designate  by  its 
appropriate  name. 

With  regard  to  the  family  of  Lydia,  the  "Reply" 
says,  page  35,  "That  there  were  no  infants  in  Ly- 
dia's  household  is  perfectly  evident,  from  the  fact  re- 
corded in  Acts  16:40."  Now  observe,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams does  not  content  himself  with  saying  that  it  is 
very  probable,  but,  that  it  is  "•perfectly  evident,^^ 
that  there  were  no  children  in  the  family  of  Lydia. 
If  it  is  "perfectly  evident,"  of  course  our  organs  of 
vision  must  be  very  defective,  if  we  cannot  see  it. 
And  what  is  said  by  the  historian,  which  makes  it 
"perfectly  evident,"  that  there  were  no  children  in 
the    family  of  Lydia?     Why,  he   informs   us  that 


52 

when  Paul  and  Silas  were  liberated  from  prison,  and 
found  it  necessary  to  leave  Philippi  because  of  the 
rage  of  persecution,  before  their  departure  they  vis- 
ited Lydia,  and  comforted  their  brethren;  of  whom 
there  were  not  a  Cew  in  this  place,  and  who  would 
be  much  grieved  in  consequence  of  being  deprived 
of  the  company  and  instruction  of  their  spiritual 
guides.  As  Paul  and  Silas,  previous  to  their  impri- 
sonment, had  lodged  in  the  house  of  Lydia,  it  was 
very  natural  for  the  sacred  writer  to  state  particu- 
larly that  they  visited  her  whose  christian  hospitality 
they  had  enjoyed.  And  as  the  brethren  in  Philippi 
generally  would  be  grieved  on  account  of  their  de- 
parture, it  was  very  natural  that  they  should  ad- 
dress some  words  of  consolation  to  them  on  the  oc- 
casion of  taking  leave  of  them.  But  the  sacred  his- 
torian neither  says  nor  intimates  that  these  brethren 
whom  Paul  and  Silas  comforted,  were  members  of 
Lydia's  family.  No!  On  this  point,  the  record  is 
silent;  and  yet  Mr.  Williams  modestly  asks  us  to 
believe,  that  it  is  "perfectly  evident." 

We  have  here,  then,  a  notable  specimen  of  Mr. 
Williams'  logical  acumen.  Paul  and  Silas,  previous 
to  their  departure  from  Philippi,  visited  Lydia,  with 
whom  they  had  formerly  lodged,  and  comforted  their 
christian  brethren,  whom  they  were  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  leaving.  Therefore  it  is  "perfectly  evi- 
dent that  there  were  no  children  in  the  household  of 
Lydia!" 

•'  Optics  sharp  he  needs,  I  ween, 
Who  sees  what  is  not  to  be  seen." 

In  conclusion,  then,  I  beg  leave  to  say,  that  the 
position  of  the  Lectures  is  not  shaken.     The  apos- 


63 

ties  baptized  households.  A  man's  household  in 
Scripture  language,  signifies  his  family,  and  particu- 
larly includes  his  children.  If  there  were  children 
in  these  households,  then  the  apostles  baptized  the 
children  of  believing  parents.  And  that  there  were 
children  in  these  families,  appears  every  way  proba- 
ble from  the  fact,  that  the  sacred  writer  makes  par- 
ticular mention  of  the  faith  of  the  jailor,  and  of 
Lydia,  but  is  entirely  silent  with  regard  to  the  faith 
of  any  one  of  their  families. 


5* 


CHAPTER.  V. 

AN  INaUIRY  INTO  THE  MEANING  OF  1  COR.  7:14. 
THE  DESIGN  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  IN  FAVOR  OF 
INFANT  BAPTISM  FROM  HISTORY.  THE  TESTI- 
MONY   OF    JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

No  sooner  has  a  parent  obtained  a  good  hope 
through  grace,  than  the  earnest  desire  of  his  heart 
will  be,  to  see  his  children  partakers  of  the  salva- 
tion which  i.g  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  as  all  who  are 
taught  of  the  Lord  know  that  the  church  is  the 
house  of  God;  that  the  Lord  hath  chosen  Zion  and 
hath  desired  it  for  his  habitation,  saying,  "This  is 
my  rest  for  ever;  here  will  1  dwell;  for  J  have  de- 
sired it,"  the  christian  parent  naturally  inquires, 
What  is  the  nature  of  the  relation  between  my 
children  and  the  church  of  the  living  God?  Does 
the  King  of  Zion  regard  my  children  as  aliens  from 
the  commonwealth  of  Israel  and  strangers  from  the 
covenant  of  promise;  or  does  he  condescend  to  look 
upon  them  as  fellow-citizens  of  the  saints  and  of 
the  household  of  God?  These  are  no  idle  questions. 
However  lightly  profane  men  may  esteem  the  privi- 
lege of  membership  in  the  church  of  God,  and 
however  sneeringly  the  Pastor  of  the  First  Bap- 
tized Church  of  Pittsburgh,  may  talk  of  "n)aking 
christians  of  poor  babes,  whether  they  will  or  not," 
the  intelligent  christian  cannot  but  feel  interested  to 
know,  whether  the   King  of  Zion   has   allotted   a 


56 

place  to  his  children  in  his  kingdom  on  earth,  or 
whether  he  regards  them  as  aliens  and  foreigners. 
The  Lectures  argue  that  the  Author  of  our  holy 
religion  has  given  an  answer  to  this  question,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  feelings  and  desires  of  the  pa- 
rental heart.  And  such  an  answer,  it  is  believed, 
is  furnished  in  the  words  of  the  apostle,  1  Cor.  7:14: 
*'£?Zse  were  your  children  unclean^  hut  noio  are  they 
holy.^''  The  argument  from  this  portion  of  Scrip- 
ture depends  upon  the  meaning  of  the  term  holy. 
After  noticing  certain  acceptations  in  which  the 
word  cannot  be  understood,  the  Lectures  remark, 
that  "one  of  the  most  common  acceptations  of  the 
term  'holy,'  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  is,  separation 
to  some  sacred  use,  dedication  to  God."  Accord- 
ingly, the  nation  of  Israel  is  termed  a  holy  nation, 
being  separated  from  all  other  nations  to  be  a  pe- 
culiar people  unto  God.  The  Temple  and  all  its 
utensils  are  said  to  be  holy,  being  dedicated  to  the 
service  of  God.  Certain  animals,  under  the  law, 
are  termed  holy,  because  proper  to  be  offered  in 
sacrifice  to  God;  while  others  are  represented  as 
unclean,  because  they  might  not  be  presented  upon 
the  altar.  According  to  scriptural  usage,  then,  the 
term,  when  applied  to  the  creature,  indicates  a  pe- 
culiar relation  between  that  creature  and  God.  The 
nation  of  Israel  was  holy.  Between  Jehovah  and 
that  people  there  existed  a  peculiar  relation.  The 
child  of  every  Israelite  was,  from  his  birth,  holy; 
that  is,  it  sustained  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  God 
of  Abraham.  And  as  the  consequence  of  this  rela- 
tion, it  was  a  proper  subject  of  dedication  to  God  in 
the  ordinance  of  circumcision.  Circumcision  did 
not  constitute  this  peculiar  relation,  but  was  the  ap- 
pointed  sign   and    recognition  of  it.     The  relation 


57 

itself  had  its  origin  in  the  gracious  constitution  of 
God,  in  which  he  declares,  "I  will  be  a  God  to  thee 
and  to  thy  seed."  But  the  children  of  heathen  pa- 
rents were  unclean.  Between  them  and  the  God  of 
Abraham  this  peculiar  relation  did  not  exist,  and 
consequently  they  might  not  be  dedicated  to  God. 
If,  however,  a  heathen  parent  renounced  idolatry 
and  embraced  the  religion  of  Abraham,  he  became 
a  partaker  of  the  peculiar  privileges  of  this  holy 
nation.  And  no  sooner  was  he  introduced  into  this 
peculiar  relation  to  the  God  of  Abraham,  than  his 
children  enjoyed  the  benefits  of  it.  They  were  no 
longer  regarded  as  unclean,  but  as  holy,  and  were 
recognised  as  such  by  receiving  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision. 

And  how  are  believers  and  their  children  to  be 
regarded  under  the  gospel  dispensation?  Address- 
ing those  to  whom  Jesus  Christ  is  precious,  the 
apostle  Peter  says,  "Ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a 
royal  priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people." 
It  is  perfectly  evident,  then,  that  believers  sustain  to 
God  a  peculiar  relation  by  which  they  are  distin- 
guished from  the  world,  and  that  they  have  a  right 
to  be  recognised  in  the  way  which  God  hath  ap- 
pointed, as  belonging  to  the  household  of  God. 
But  it  is  not  more  positively  declared  that  believers 
are  a  "holy  nation,"  than  it  is  clearly  taught  that 
their  children  are  holy.  "But  now,"  says  the 
apostle,  "a7*e  theij  holy.^''  And  consequently  God 
has  conferred  on  them  a  right  to  be  recognised  as 
belonging  to  the  household  of  God,  which  no  man 
may  disannul.  And  hence  from  this  scriptural  prin- 
ciple, that  God  now  regards  the  children  of  a  be- 
liever as  holy,  their  right  to  baptism  is  just  as  evi- 
dent, as  that  the  seed  of  Abraham  had  a  right  to 
circumcision. 


58 

Such  is  the  argument  of  the  Lectures.  And  how 
does  Mr.  Williams  meet  it?  Does  he  undertake  to 
show  from  Scripture  that  the  interpretation  of  the 
term  "holy,"  is  incorrect?  No!  This  he  could  not 
do.  But  to  admit  honestly,  that  the  interpretation 
is  in  accordance  with  scri|)ture  usage,  would  have 
been  to  place  himself  in  rather  an  awkward  predic- 
ament. What  then  is  his  resort?  To  admit  that 
the  term  holy,  is  here  to  be  taken  in  its  scriptural 
sense,  would  be  in  effect  to  yield  the  argument. 
And  however  honorable  this  would  have  been,  it 
would  not  have  comported  so  well  with  his  object  in 
writing  the  "Reply."  Accordingly  he  wraps  him- 
self up  in  his  dignity,  and  placing  all  authority, 
both  sacred  and  profane,  under  his  feet,  he  asserts 
with  as  much  self-importance,  as  though  the  deter- 
mination of  the  meaninii  of  lansuase  had  been 
committed  to  his  sovereign  good  pleasure,  "The 
term  'holy,'  in  the  passage,  is  employed  in  the  sense 
of  legitimate.'''' 

And  what  authority,  let  me  ask,  have  you,  sir, 
for  such  an  assertion?  You  have  said  in  another 
place,  (and  it  is  the  best  thing  you  have  said  in  all 
your  "Reply,")  "The  time  is  fast  passing  away,  in 
which  people  will  be  satisfied  to  take  their  instruc- 
tions at  the  lips  of  their  minister  without  reference 
to  the  word  of  God."  And  what  will  people  who 
possess  a  moderate  stock  of  common  sense,  in  con- 
nection with  a  reasonable  acquaintance  with  the 
language  of  the  Bible,  think  of  the  minister  who 
tells  them  that  the  word  "holy,"  is  to  be  understood 
in  the  sense  of  "legitimate?"  Will  thoy  not  be  very 
apt  to  suspect,  that  he  is  aiming  at  the  accomplish- 
ment of  an  object  which  is  not  very  "legitimate?" 

I  must  be  permitted  then  to  say,  in  behalf  of  the 


59 

people,  that  we  cannot  lake  such  instruction  from 
your  lips,  "without  some  reference  to  the  word  of 
God;"  and  you  give  us  none.  Can  you  produce  a 
solitary  example  in  all  the  Bible,  in  which  the  word 
in  question  conveys  the  idea  of  legitimacy?  Fa- 
miliar with  Greek  Lexicons  as  you  would  have  your 
readers  to  believe  that  you  are,  can  you  produce 
the  authority  of  one  out  of  them  all,  in  support  of 
your  interpretation?  It  is  not  pretended  that  Sucih 
authority  exists. 

The  reader  is  desired  to  pause  for  a  moment,  and 
look  at  the  attitude  in  which  Mr.  Williams  exhibits 
himself  to  our  view.  Here  is  a  plain  word  of  very 
common  occurrence  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  This 
portion  of  the  word  of  God,  in  which  it  occurs,  ad- 
mits of  an  easy  and  natural  interpretation,  if  we 
understand  the  term  "holy,"  in  its  ordinary  scrip- 
tural acceptation.  But  to  take  the  term  in  its  usual 
sense,  in  the  passage  under  consideration,  would  be 
to  establish  a  doctrine  which  Mr.  Williams  mani- 
fests, at  least,  a  strong  disposition  to  overthrow. 
Accordingly,  he  departs  from  the  scriptural  mean- 
lug  of  the  word  altogether,  and  puts  upon  it  an  in- 
terpretation which  it  bears  no  where  else  in  all  the 
Bible.  And  such  are  the  difficulties  to  which  men 
subject  themselves,  when  they  undertake  to  make 
the  Scriptures  bend  to  support  their  opinions,  instead 
of  making  their  opinions  bow  with  humility  to  the 
authority  of  God's  word. 

Believmg  parent!  rejoice,  since  he  who  is  thy  God 
hath  declared,  that  thy  children  are  "holy."  He 
regards  them  as  sustaining  to  him  a  peculiar  rela- 
tion; and  hence  it  is  your  precious  privilege  to  dedi- 
cate them  to  him.  ThankHjil  for  the  privilege  which, 
as  members  of  the  household  of  God,  you  enjoy, 


60 

present  your  children  to  him,  that  through  the  me- 
dium of  his  own  ordinance,  he  may  communicate  to 
them  that  grace  which  is  necessary  to  make  them 
holy  in  heart,  and  heirs  to  that  inheritance  which  is 
incorruptible,  undefiled,  and  that  fadelh  not  away. 

After  having  advanced  sucfi  arguments  from  the 
word  of  God,  as  were  considered  sufficient  to  show 
that  the  children  of  believers  have  by  divine  appoint- 
ment a  right  to  baptism,  the  Lectures  proceed  to  ex- 
amine the  history  of  the  primitive  church,  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  what  was  the  practice  which 
prevailed  in  the  ages  immediately  succeeding  the 
period  when  the  apostles  closed  their  labors.  We 
have  searched  the  Scriptures,  which  are  the  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  are  fully  persuaded 
that  infant  baptism  is  the  doctrine  of  the  word  of 
God.  Our  faith  is  founded  not  upon  the  opinions  of 
pious  and  learned  men  in  the  church,  but  upon  what 
is  taught  in  the  Oracles  of  truth.  If,  however,  it 
appears  as  the  result  of  careful  inquiry,  that  those 
who  were  contemporary  with  the  apostles,  or  those 
who  were  the  immediate  successors  of  the  apostles, 
regarded  the  children  of  believers  as  proper  subjects 
of  baptism,  this  will  afford  corroborative  evidence 
that  our  interpretation  of  the  apostolic  doctrine  is 
correct. 

The  reader  is  respectfully  desired  to  turn  to  page 
71  of  the  Lectures,  and  observe  the  care  which  is 
taken  to  state  explicitly  the  use  which  the  author 
proposes  to  make  of  the  historical  testimony,  which 
is  adduced  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  It  is  there 
distinctly  declared  that  "our  faith  does  not  rest  upon 
the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  but  upon  the  word  of 
God.  However,  it  is  to  be  supposed  that  those  who 
lived  in  the  age  immediutely  succeeding  that  of  the 


61 

apostles,  were  acquainted  with  the  practice  of  the 
apostolic  churches.  And  though  in  general,  they 
are  not  entitled  to  much  regard,  as  expounders  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  yet  the  Fathers  are  cer- 
tainly competent  to  bear  testimony  as  to  matters  of 
fact  which  came  under  their  own  observation." 

Our  object,  then,  in  referring  to  the  history  of  the 
primitive  church,  is  not  to  learn  whether  infant  bap- 
tism is  really  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible — for  that  point 
has  already  been  determined  by  an  appeal  to  the  law 
and  to  the  testimony — but,  to  ascertain  whether  it 
was  the  practice  of  the  church  at  that  time,  to  ad- 
minister baptism  to  the  children  of  believing  parents. 
It  is  a  fact,  over  which  every  friend  of  Christianity, 
while  perusing  the  pages  of  ecclesiastical  history, 
has  had  occasion  to  mourn,  that  at  an  early  period, 
corruptions  both  in  doctrine  and  worship,  were  in- 
troduced into  the  church.  Still,  however,  in  the 
darkest  period,  Jesus  Christ  has  had  a  church  in  the 
world,  which  has  held  fast  his  word  and  kept  his 
ordinances.  And  our  inquiry  is  simply  this:  Is  in- 
fant baptism  an  ordinance  which  the  church  has  ob- 
served from  the  days  of  the  apostles  down  to  the 
present  time?  It  is  a  question  of  fact,  which  can  be 
determined  only  by  an  appeal  to  the  history  of  the 
church   of  Christ. 

After  the  Lectures  have  thus  distinctly  and  ex- 
plicitly stated  the  object  for  which  it  is  proposed  to 
examine  the  early  history  of  the  church,  the  reader 
is  requested  to  notice  the  palpable  misrepresentation 
of  this  object  which  is  made  by  the  author  of  the 
"Reply."  Hear  him!  After  modestly  stating  that 
the  "Dr.  has  totally  failed  to  find  precept,  example, 
or  even  a  shadow  of  infant  baptism  in  the  word  of 
God,"  it  is  added,  "Ae  'proceeds  to  search  the  Pan- 
6 


62 

dota  of  human  tradition^  for  autliority  in  favor 
of  this  cusiom  of  the  Romish  church^  "To  search 
human  tradition  for  authority,''''  in  support  of  infant 
baptism!  Had  you,  sir,  no  compunctions  of  con- 
science when  you  penned  this  sentence,  in  which 
you,  in  ihe  most  direct  terms,  misrepresent  the 
plainly  expressed  design  of  the  author  to  whom  you 
profess  to  reply?  In  the  book  before  you  it  is  ex- 
pressly declared,  that  "our  faith  does  not  rest  upon 
the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  but  upon  the  word  of 
God."  And  yet  you,  utterly  disregarding  the  sacred 
obligations  of  honor  and  of  truth,  tell  your  readers, 
that  my  object  in  searching  "human  tradition,"  is,  to 
find  "authority"  for  this  article  of  our  faith!  You, 
sir,  know  very  well  that  the  idea  of  reliance  upon 
"human  tradition,"  in  matters  of  faith,  is  abhorrent 
to  the  soul  of  every  true  Protestant.  And  while  the 
book  before  you  contained  a  plain  disavowal  of  all 
such  reliance,  let  me  ask,  where  was  christian  cour- 
tesy? where  were  truth  and  honesty,  when  you  pre- 
sumed to  tell  your  readers,  that  my  object  in  exam- 
ining the  history  of  the  church,  was,  to  find  "aw- 
thority^''  for  infant  baptism? 

"Authority  in  favor  of  this  custom  of  the  Romish 
church!''''  And  is  it  possible  that  a  man  who  is  sur- 
rounded with  an  intelligent  christian  population  like 
that  of  Pittsburgh,  can  so  completely  take  leave  of 
all  the  decencies  of  civilized  society,  as  to  offer  a 
deliberate  insult  to  a  whole  community!  Mr.  Wil- 
liams lives  in  the  midst  of  a  Protestant  community, 
of  whom,  it  is  believed,  nine-tenths  of  the  most  in- 
telligent and  pious,  conscientiously  regard  infant 
baptism  as  a  doctrine  included  in  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints;  and  yet  he  has  the  impudence 
to   charge  this  whole   Protestant  community   with 


63 

holding  a  mere  "  custom  of  the  Romish  church!'''' 
Well  does  it  become  the  man  to  hang  his  head,  as 
he  walks  the  streets  of  a  city,  whose  Protestant  in- 
habitants he  has  thus  grossly  insulted! 

But  in  connection  with  this  display  of  arrogance 
and  ignorance,  Mr.  Williams  gives  us  an  exhibition 
of  his  classical  knowledge.  He  represents  the  au- 
thor of  the  Lectures,  as  searching  "the  Pandora  of 
human  tradition!"  The  Pandora  of  human  tradi- 
tion! And  what  is  that?  the  honest  reader  exclaims. 
Pandora,  according  to  Grecian  fable,  was  the  first 
female  that  was  created.  She  was  married  to  Epi- 
metheus.  In  the  dwelling  of  Epimetheus,  was  a 
closed  jar,  which  he  had  been  strictly  charged  never 
to  open.  Pandora,  however,  under  the  influence  of 
female  curiosity,  one  day  raised  the  lid  of  the  jar, 
when  out  flew  all  the  evils  which  have  since  afllicted 
the  human  family,  and  spread  themselves  over  the 
earth.  And  hence  the  phrase,  "Pandora's  jar;"  or, 
according  to  the  more  common  but  incorrect  expres- 
sion, "Pandora's  box,"  is  sometimes  employed  by  a 
figure  of  speech,  to  signify  any  thing  which  is  the 
source  of  much  evil.*  It  would  seem  that  Mr.  Wil- 
liams has  somewhere  seen  or  heard  of  the  fable  of 
"Pandora's  box."  But  having  taken  a  "peep"  only 
at  the  fable,  as  we  have  seen  he  does  at  some  other 
things  about  which  he  writes,  he  has  mistaken  Pan- 
dora herself  for  the  jar,  which  contained  the  evils 
which  were  let  loose  upon  society.  And  hence  he 
represents  me  as  searching  the  poor  woman  herself, 
instead  of  the  jar,  which  she  imprudently  opened  I 
To  talk  about  searching  the  '■'■Pandora  of  tradition," 
is  to  speak  about  as  good  sense  as  it  would  be,  for 

*Aflthon's  Classical  Dictionary,  article  Pandora. 


64 

the  servant-girl  to  say  to  her  mistress,  when  Mr. 
Williams  returns  with  his  basket  from  the  market, 
I  will  search  my  master  (instead  of  his  basket)  to 
see  what  he  has  brought  home  for  dinner! 

And  now,  sir,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  offer  you  a 
h'ttle  needful  advice,  I  would  say,  let  classical  allu- 
sions  alone,  until  you  learn  how  to  introduce  them, 
without  making  yourself  ridiculous.  They  who 
cannot  swim,  according  to  the  proverb,  ought  to  be 
careful  to  keep  out  of  deep  water. 

The  reader  then  will  see,  that  the  avowed  object 
for  which  the  Lectures  propose  to  examine  the  early 
history  of  the  church,  is  not,  as  Mr.  Williams  falsely 
states,  to  find  "  authority"  for  infant  baptism,  but 
simply  to  ascertain  what  was  the  practice  of  the 
church  in  relation  to  this  matter.  A  knowledge  of 
what  was  the  practice  of  the  church,  at  any  period 
subsequent  to  the  age  of  the  apostles,  can  of  course 
be  obtained  from  no  other  source  but  history;  or,  as 
the  "Reply"  disingenuously  styles  it,  "human  tradi- 
tion." And  accordingly,  the  Lectures  examine  the 
history  of  the  first  four  centuries  of  the  christian  era. 
And  the  result  of  this  examination  is,  a  thorough 
conviction,  that  infant  baptism  is  a  doctrine  which 
was  held  by  the  primitive  church. 

The  first  testimony  introduced  in  the  Lectures,  is 
taken  from  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  was 
born  some  time  before  the  death  of  the  apostle  John, 
and  who  suffered  martyrdom  for  the  faith  of  Jesus, 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  The  writ- 
injjs  of  this  distinoruished  Father,  to  which  the  Lee- 
tures  refer,  are,  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  a  Jew, 
and  his  Apologies  for  the  Christian  Religion,  pre- 
sented to  the  Roman  emperor.  In  the  former  of 
these  works,  Justin  answers  the  Jewish  objection  to 


65 

Christianity,  drawn  from  the  neglect  of  circumcision, 
by  showing  that,  under  the  Gospel,  we  receive  what 
was  meant  by  circumcision,  through  the  medium  of 
another  ordinance.  The  passage  referred  to,  is  the 
following:  "We  also,  who  by  Jesus  Christ  have  had 
access  to  God,  have  not  received  this  carnal  circum- 
cision, but  the  spiritual  circumcision  which  Enoch, 
and  those  like  him,  observed:  and  we  have  received 
it  by  baptism."  The  general  import  of  Justin's  re- 
mark, I  understand  to  be  this:  It  is  true,  as  though 
he  had  said  to  his  Jewish  friend,  that  circumcision  is 
not  now  observed  as  an  ordinance  of  the  christian 
church;  but  we  sustain  no  loss  on  that  account;  for 
we  have  an  ordinance  which  supplies  its  place.  Cir- 
cumcision in  the  flesh,  was  significant  of  the  neces- 
sity of  a  change  of  heart;  or  in  other  words,  of  spir- 
itual circumcision.  And  that  which  was  formerly 
signified  by  circumcision,  is  now  by  the  grace  of 
God  conferred  through  the  medium  of  baptism.  We 
christians,  says  Justin,  have  received  the  spiritual 
circumcision  by  baptism.  [  regard  this  then  as  in- 
disputable evidence,  that  the  primitive  christians 
considered  baptism  and  circumcision  as  institutions 
of  the  same  general  import;  and  consequently,  as 
circumcision  has  been  abolished  with  the  change  of 
dispensation  in  the  church,  baptism  has  supplied  its 
place.  The  language  of  Justin  is  by  no  means  pe- 
culiar to  him.  When  we  come  to  examine  the  testi- 
mony of  Cyprian,  of  Athanasius,  and  of  Augustine, 
it  will  be  seen  that  it  was  common  with  the  Fathers 
to  speak  of  baptism  as  christian  circumcision. 

Another    testimony   to    prove   that   the  primitive 
church  regarded  infants  as  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism, is  taken  from   one   of  Justin's  Apologies.     In 
this  Apology  Justin   defends  the  character  of  his 
6* 


66 

fellow-christians  against  the  slanderous  imputations 
of  their  persecuting  enemies.  And  among  other 
things,  he  remarks :  "There  are  many  persons 
among  us,  both  male  and  female,  of  sixty  and  se- 
venty years  of  age,  who  from  childhood  were  made 
disciples  of  Christy  who  remain  uncorrupted."  This 
Apology  was  presented  to  the  Roman  Emperor,  An- 
toninus Pius,  about  A.  I).  150;  and  consequently 
those  persons,  many  of  whom  were  now  sixty  and 
seventy  years  of  age,  and  who  had  been  made  dis- 
ciples to  Christ  from  their  childhood,  must  have  been 
for  several  years  contemporary  with  the  last  of  the 
Apostles.  It  appears,  then,  according  to  this  an- 
cient Father,  that  persons  may  be  made  disciples  to 
Christ  from  their  childhood.  Children  are,  by  bap- 
tism, introduced  into  the  school  of  Christ,  and  are 
then  as  scholars  in  connection  with  the  household  of 
faith,  educated  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
Lord. 

The  force  of  this  testimony,  Mr.  Williams  endea- 
vors to  neutralize,  by  introducing  another  quotation 
from  one  of  Justin's  Apologies,  which  he  says, 
"clearly  proves  that  the  childhood  mentioned  by  Jus- 
tin was  not  infancy."  And  what  do  you  thmk, 
honest  reader,  is  the  statement  of  Justin,  which 
"clearly  proves,"  that  childhood  does  not  mean  in- 
fancy? In  giving  an  account  of  the  manner  in 
which  individuals  were  introduced  into  the  christian 
community,  Justin  states  that  they  were  previously 
instructed  in  the  principles  of  the  gospel.  And  then 
having  professed  their  faith  in  Christ  and  having  de- 
clared their  intention  to  live  according  to  the  princi- 
ples of  the  gospel,  they  were  baptized.  "I  will  now 
declare  to  you,"  says  Justin,  "after  what  manner 
we,  being  made  new  by  Christ,  have  dedicated  our- 


67 

selves  to  God — they  who  are  persuaded  and  do  be- 
lieve that  these  things  which  are  taught  and  said  by 
us,  are  true,  and  do  promise  to  live  according  to 
them,  are  directed  to  pray  and  ask  of  God  with  fast- 
ing the  forgiveness  of  their  former  sins — then  they 
are  brought  by  us  to  a  place  where  there  is  water, 
and  they  are  renewed,"  or  baptized.  And  what  is 
there  in  this  statement,  to  prove  that  childhood  does 
not  mean  infancy?  It  must  be  evident  to  every  in- 
telligent reader,  that  it  "clearly  proves"  no  such 
thing.  It  simply  proves  that  at  that  time,  the  church 
was  careful  in  attending  to  the  religious  instruction 
of  those  who  were  received  into  her  fellowship;  and 
all  regular  churches  now,  are  attentive  to  the  same 
duty. 

it  would  appear  that  Mr.  Williams  himself  felt 
very  sensible,  that  the  language  of  Justin  does  not 
"clearly  prove"  the  point  which  he  wished  to  estab- 
lish by  it.  And,  therefore,  he  adds  something  of  his 
own  to  help  out  the  deficiency.  After  Justin  de- 
scribes the  manner  in  which  individuals  are  prepar- 
ed for  admission  into  the  church,  he  adds,  "Then 
they  are  brought  by  us  to  a  place  where  there  is 
water,  and  they  are  renewed."  But,  in  Mr.  Wil- 
liams' version,  it  is,  "Then  [and  not  until  then] 
they  are  brought  to  a  place  of  water."  The  words 
which  I  have  inclosed  in  brackets  are  not  found  in 
Justin,  but  are  an  interpolation  of  the  author  of  the 
"Reply."  I  should  not  have  thought  it  necessary  to 
notice  this  pitiful  artifice,  had  it  not  been  that  Mr. 
Williams  not  only  puts  into  Justin's  mouth,  language 
which  he  did  not  use,  but  to  give  the  greater  weight 
to  his  own  interpolation,  he  displays  it  in  glaring 
capitals.  After  all,  when  he  has  added  to  the  text 
of  Justin  his  own   interpolation,  "and  not  until 


68 

THEN,"  it  does  not  materially  help  his  cause.  In  the 
passage  referred  to,  Justin  is  not  speaking  in  relatioa 
to  the  case  of  infants,  but  with  reference  to  those 
who  were  received  into  the  household  of  faith,  upon 
their  own  profession  of  subjection  to  Christ.  And 
the  manner  of  receiving  such,  in  all  regular  church- 
es, is  substantially  the  same  with  that  described  by 
Justin.  They  are  first  instructed  in  the  principles  of 
Christianity,  and  profess  their  faith  in  Christ,  before 
they  are  bapti;zed.  But  the  object  of  Mr.  Williams 
would  seem  to  be  to  make  this  worthy  Father  teach 
that  none  but  those  who  are  capable  of  making  a 
personal  profession  of  their  faith,  are  to  be  baptized, 
and  consequently  that  infants  should  be  excluded* 
The  reader,  however,  who  can  consult  the  original, 
may,  by  referring  to  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism,^ see,  that  in  the  Greek  of  Justin,  there  is  no- 
thing to  correspond  with  Mr.  Williams'  "and  not 

UNTIL  THEN." 

And  while  I  notice  this  dishonesty  in  the  quotation 
from  Justin,  I  may  remark  that  Mr.  Williams  pur- 
sues a  similar  course,  in  his  references  to  Scripture, 
when  the  text  will  not  prove  his  point,  without  some 
emendation.  As  an  example,  the  reader  may  refer 
to  page  37  of  the  "Reply,"  Here  he  says,  "I  have 
the  infallible  testimony  of  the  everlasting  and  uner- 
ring Spirit,  and  the  law  of  the  Lord,  that  believers 
only  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism."  That  be- 
lievers are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  the  Bible 
clearly  teaches,  and  all  admit.  But  that  believers 
^^only,^''  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  is  a  point  for 
which  we  have  Mr.  Williams'  testimony,  not  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Bible.     For  another  example  of  the 

♦Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  77.     Oxford  edition. 


69 

same  kind,  the  reader  may  refer  to  page  44  of  the 
"Reply."  The  apostles  baptized  none  but  those  who 
believed  and  gladly  received  the  word."  That  the 
apostles  baptized  such  as  believed  and  gladly  re- 
ceived the  word,  we  all  know.  But  that  they  bap- 
tized "/lOTze  but  those^''^  is  what  Mr.  Williams  says, 
not  what  the  Bible  teaches.  It  need  not  seem  strange 
then,  that  a  man  who  can  add  important  words  and 
phrases,  to  make  the  Scriptures  support  a  favorite 
hypothesis,  should  for  a  similar  purpose  make  free 
with  the  text  of  Justin  Martyr. 

In  conclusion,  then,  Justin  Martyr,  who  was  born 
in  the  apostolic  age,  in  common  with  the  other  Fath- 
ers, speaks  of  circumcision  and  baptism,  in  such  a 
connection  as  can  be  explained  on  no  other  principle, 
but  that  he  considered  baptism  as  christian  circumci- 
sion; and  consequently,  that  infants  were  regarded 
as  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  And,  moreover,  this 
worthy  Father  says,  that  there  were  many  of  his 
fellow-christians,  who  had  been  made  disciples  to 
Christ  from  their  childhood.  Unless,  therefore,  we 
could  believe,  with  the  Pastor  oC  the  First  Baptized 
church  of  Pittsburgh,  that  childhood  may  mean 
manhood,  or  even  old  age,  we  must  believe,  that 
during  the  first  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the  last 
of  the  apostles,  it  was  the  practice  of  the  church  to 
admit  the  children  of  believing  parents  into  the 
school  of  Christ  by  baptism,  that  they  might  be 
brought  up  under  the  maternal  care  of  the  church  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

THE    TESTIMONY    OF    TERTULLIAN,    OF    ORIGEN,  AND 
OF  CYPRIAN,  IN  FAVOR  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

The  second  witness  introduced  in  the  Lectures,  to 
show  that  infant  baptism  was  a  doctrine  held  by  the 
primitive  church,  is  the  Latin  Father,  Tertullian. 
And  the  greater  importance  is  attached  to  this  wit- 
ness, because,  in  consequence  of  some  peculiar  views 
which  he  entertained  in  relation  to  sins  committed 
after  baptism,  he  recommended  the  delay  of  baptism, 
especially  in  the  case  of  little  children.  Since,  then, 
Tertullian  was  in  favor  of  the  delay  of  baptism,  had 
the  baptism  of  children  at  that  time  been  regarded 
as  at  variance  with  the  Scriptures,  or  inconsistent 
with  the  received  faith  of  the  church,  instead  of  sim- 
ply recommending  delay,  as  he  has  done,  he  would 
have  condemned  infant  baptism,  as  a  thing  improper 
in  itself.  But  there  is  no  intimation,  that  the  prac- 
tice was  either  wrong  in  itself  or  inconsistent  with 
apostolic  example.  The  passage  quoted  in  the  Lec- 
tures is  from  Tertullian's  treatise  concerning  bap- 
tism, in  which  the  following  sentence  is  particularly 
deserving  of  consideration:  "Therefore,  according  to 
every  one's  condition  and  disposition  and  age,  the 
delay  of  baptism  is  more  profitable,  especially  in  the 


72 

case  of  little  children."*  The  reader  who  may  not 
have  access  to  the  treatise  of  Tertullian,  can  see  an 
extract  from  it,  either  in  Wall's  History  of  Infant 
Baptism,  or  in  Gieseler's  Ecclesiastical  History. 

It  is  perfectly  evident,  as  the  Lectures  state,  that 
Tertullian  himself  was  not  in  favor  of  infant  bap- 
tism; and  that  he  recommended  the  delay  of  baptism 
generally,  but  especially  in  the  case  of  little  chil- 
dren. But  why  should  he  recommend  the  delay  of 
baptism?  If  it  was  not  the  custom  of  the  church  at 
that  time  to  baptize  children,  such  a  recommenda- 
tion would  have  been  wholly  unnecessary.  And  let 
it  be  particularly  observed,  that  Tertullian  simply 
gives  it  as  his  opinion,  that  the  delay  of  baptism  is 
more  prafifable.  Of  two  practices,  both  of  which 
are  proper,  one  may  be  better  than  the  other.  It  is 
proper  to  read  the  word  of  God  upon  the  Sabbath, 
but  it  is  more  profitable  to  attend  upon  the  preach- 
ing of  the  word.  But  of  two  practices,  one  of 
which  is  sinful  and  the  other  is  a  duty,  no  person, 
I  suppose,  but  the  Pastor  of  "  the  First  Baptized 
church  of  Pittsburgh"  would  say,  that  the  one  is 
more  profiahle  than  the  other. 

It  is  so  evident  from  the  language  of  Tertullian, 
that  infant  baptism  was,  in  this  age,  among  the 
usages  of  the  church,  that  even  Mr.  Williams  ad- 
mits, that  "about  this  time,  the  error  of  infant  bap- 
tism," as  he  presumes  to  term  it,  "began  to  be  intro- 
duced." If  infant  baptism  was  introduced  in  the 
age  of  Tertullian,  who  introduced  it?  Can  any  man 
in  his  sober  senses,  believe  that  a  doctrine  entirely 
new  and  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  gospel,  could 

*  Itaque,  pro  cujusque  prcson©  conditione  ac  dispositione, 
etiam  aetale,  cunctatio  baptismi  utilior  est;  praecipue  tamen 
circa  parvulos. 


73 

have  been  brought  into  the  church  so  silently,  that 
history  has  recorded  no  comnnotion,  connected  with 
its  first  propagation,  nor  has  even  preserved  the 
name  of  the  man,  who  brought  about  a  change  so 
remarkable?  If  Tertullian  had  regarded  infant  bap- 
tism as  an  "error;"  as  a  corruption  of  Christianity, 
would  he  have  been  satisfied  with  simply  recom- 
mending the  delay  of  baptism  as  "more  profitable?" 
The  supposition  is  preposterous!  When  Mr.  Wil- 
liams says  that  Tertullian  represents  infant  baptism 
as  an  ^Hnnovation,^^  he  furnishes  another  example  of 
a  fault  in  relation  to  which  he  is  exceedingly  guilty, 
and  that  is,  of  putting  into  the  mouths  of  those  whom 
he  quotes,  language  which  they  never  used.  There 
is  no  intimation  whatever,  in  the  lan£ua"je  of  Ter- 
tuUian,  that  he  regarded  infant  baptism  as  something 
new  in  the  church.  It  was  an  existing  usage  of 
which  he  did  not  altogether  approve,  and  therefore, 
in  the  case  of  children,  he  recommended  the  delay 
of  baptism  as  "more  profitable."  And  he  gives  a 
similar  recommendation  in  the  case  of  all  unmar- 
ried persons.  And  Mr.  Williams  has  just  as  much 
authority  to  say,  that  Tertullian  represents  the  bap- 
tism of  unmarried  adults,  as  an  "innovation,"  as  he 
has  to  say,  that  this  Father  gives  such  a  representa- 
tion of  the  baptism  of  infants. 

Upon  the  whole,  then,  it  is  quite  evident  to  my 
mind  that  the  language  of  Tertullian  can  be  inter- 
preted on  no  other  principle,  but  that  infant  baptism 
was,  in  his  age,  a  received  doctrine  of  the  church. 
It  is  no  less  evident  that  this  Father,  whose  views 
were  in  some  respects  peculiar,  endeavored  to  intro- 
duce the  "innovation"  of  delaying  the  baptism  of 
children;  but  as  we  shall  afterwards  see,  he  was  not 


74 

successful  in  producing  a  change  in  the  received 
faith  of  the  church  on  this  subject. 

The  next  witness  brought  forward  in  the  Lectures 
to  testify  in  relation  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
ciiurch,  is  the  famous  Origen.  It  is  somewhat 
amusing  to  see  the  pugnacious  disposition  which  Mr. 
Williams  displays,  and  which  frequently  prompts 
him  to  place  himself  in  the  attitude  of  opposition, 
when  there  is  no  need  for  it.  In  consequence  of  his 
keenness  for  battle,  he  sometimes  drives  his  head 
against  a  post  which  he  might  as  well  avoid,  and  af- 
ter all,  gets  nothing  for  his  pains  but  a  severe  contu- 
sion. Of  this  we  have  a  notable  example  in  the 
manner  in  which  he  pounces  upon  the  character  of 
Origen.  In  connection  with  the  mention  of  this  re- 
markable man,  the  Lectures  observe  that,  "He  was 
a  man  of  great  learning,  and  one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished writers  of  his  age."  This,  every  one, 
who  is  tolerably  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, knows  to  be  the  literal  truth.  And  yet  Mr. 
Williams,  without  seeming  to  know  what  he  is  op- 
posing, or  what  he  would  be  at,  insinuates  that  I 
have  made  a  great  mistake  in  saying  that  Origen 
was  a  learned  man.  And  after  calling  in  question 
Origen's  claim  to  the  reputation  of  a  man  of  learn- 
ing, he  adds,  with  as  much  self-complacency,  as 
though  he  really  supposed  he  had  gained  a  signal 
victory,  "Let  history  decide  between  us."  Decide 
what?  Whether  Origen  was,  as  the  Lectures  state, 
a  distinguished  writer  and  a  learned  man!  It  would 
be  to  offer  an  indignity  to  the  reader,  who  is  at  all 
versed  in  ecclesiastical  history,  to  suppose  that  he 
needed  any  evidence  to  prove,  that  Origen  was  one 
of  the  most  learned  men  of  the  age  in  which   he 


75 

lived.  But  as  some  may  read  these  pages,  who 
have  not  access  to  the  requisite  sources  of  informa- 
tion, it  may  be  proper  to  give  the  character  of  Ori- 
gen  in  a  literary  point  of  view,  as  drawn  by  those 
who  knew  what  they  were  writing  about. 

In  speaking  of  the  more  eminent  writers  of  the 
third  century,  the  celebrated  historian  Mosheim,  re- 
marks: "Of  the  writers  of  the  third  century,  the 
most  distinguished  for  the  celebrity  of  his  name,  and 
for  the  extent  of  his  writings,  was  Origen,  a  Pres- 
byter and  Catechist  of  Alexandria,  a  man  truly 
great,  and  a  luminary  to  the  Christian  World.* 
In  his  Classical  Dictionary,  Anthon  gives  the  follow- 
ing character  of  Origen:  "All  agree,  that  he  was  a 
man  of  active  and  powerful  mind,  and  of  fervent 
piety;  fond  of  investigating  truth,  and  free  from  a! I 
mean  prejudices;  of  the  inost  profound  learning, 
and  the  most  untiring  industry."  And  now,  sir, 
permit  me  to  ask.  What  think  you  of  the  decision 
of  history,  as  to  the  learning  of  Origen?  One 
thing  at  least  the  reader  cannot  fail  to  perceive,  and 
that  is,  that  whatever  claim  Origen  may  have  to  the 
reputation  of  a  man  of  learning,  there  is  not  much 
cause  to  apprehend  that  Mr.  Williams' "much  learn- 
ing," will  make  him  "mad." 

But  there  was  no  call  for  this  puny  attack  upon 
Origen's  literary  reputation.  The  question  with 
which  we  are  concerned,  is  simply,  What  is  his  tes- 
timony in  relation  to  the  practice  of  the  church  in 
the  age  in  which  he  lived? 

Having  insinuated  that  Origen  has  no  claim  to 
the  character  which  the  Lectures  give  him,  as  a 
learned  man   and  a  distinguished  writer,  Mr.  Wil- 

*Murdock's  Mosheim,  vol.  1.  p.  166. 


76 

iiams  tries  to  make  it  appear,  that  after  all,  the  wri- 
tings of  Origen  furnish  no  testimony  in  favor  of  in- 
fant baptism.  The  first  extract  from  the  writings  of 
Origen  is  taken  from  a  Homily  on  Leviticus:  "Let 
it  be  considered  what  is  the  reason  that,  whereas, 
the  baptism  of  the  church  is  given  for  forgiveness 
of  sins,  infants  also  are,  by  the  usage  of  the  clinrch, 
hapthed,  when,  if  there  was  nothing  in  infants  that 
wanted  forgiveness  and  mercy,  the  grace  of  baptism 
would  be  needless  to  them."  Again,  in  the  Com- 
mentary on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  he  says, 
"For  this  also  it  was,  that  the  church  had  from  the 
apostles,  an  order  to  give  baptism  even  to  infants.''^ 
This  language  makes  it  so  plain,  that  it  was  at  this 
time  regarded  by  the  church  as  an  apostolic  prac- 
tice to  baptize  infants,  that  the  only  way  to  destroy 
the  force  of  Origen's  testimony,  is  to  deny  that 
those  extracts  are  genuine.  Accordingly,  the  "Re- 
ply" asserts,  "The  quotation  made  by  the  Dr.  is  a 
mere  interpolation,  made  by  Ruffinus,  who  pretend- 
ed to  translate  the  Greek  of  Origen  into  the  Latin 
language."  And  having  made  this  bold  assertion, 
he  adds,  "This  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Doddridge  and 
proved  by  Dr.  Gill."  It  would  appear  from  the 
general  character  of  his  book,  that  Mr.  Williams 
proceeds  upon  the  principle  of  asserting  just  what 
suits  him,  without  troubling  himself  to  inquire 
whether  the  things  asserted  are  true  or  false.  And 
it  is  really  an  unpleasant  task  to  have  to  expose  that 
reckless  disregard  of  truth,  which  obtrudes  itself 
upon  our  notice  on  almost  every  page. 

In  the  first  place  Mr.  Williams  asserts  that  the  ex- 
tract which  the  Lectures  give  as  a  quotation  from 
Origen,  is  really  an  interpolation  of  Ruffinus.  And 
then  to  keep  his  own  assertion    in  countenance,  he 


77 

adds,  "Dr.  Doddridge  admits  il."  Now  the  truth 
is,  Dr.  Doddridge  admits  no  such  thing.  What  he 
admits  is,  that  Ruffinus,  in  his  translation  of  Origen, 
has  made  some  bold  alterations.  But  instead  of  ad- 
mitting that  the  quotations  Avhich  I  have  made,  are 
passages  which  have  been  altered  by  Ruffinus,  he 
says,  "This  is  not  applicable  to  all  the  passages 
brought  from  him"  (Origen,)  which  refer  to  infant 
baptism.  Bui  let  Dr.  Doddridge  speak  for  himself: 
"It  is  allowed  there  are  many  passages  in  Origen, 
which  expressly  refer  to  infant  baptism;  but  they 
are  chiefly  to  be  found  in  those  translations  of  his 
Greek  works,  which  were  done  by  Ruffinus  and  Je- 
rome, who  made  some  very  bold  alterations  accord- 
ing to  their  own  judgment  and  taste;  but  this  is  not 
applicable  to  all  the  passages  brought  from  him. 
It  may  be  added,  that  the  translations  of  Jerome, 
which  are  often  referred  to  on  this  Occasion,  were  by 
no  means  so  lax  as  those  of  Ruffinus."*  Some  of 
the  original  works  of  Origen  were  translated  by 
Ruffinus,  and  others  by  Jerome.  Ruffinus  seems  to 
have  used  Origen,  much  in  the  same  way  as  Mr. 
Williams  does  his  authorities.  When  Origen  was 
not  sufficiently  orthodox,  Ruffinus,  in  his  translation, 
makes  him  say  what,  in  his  judgment,  he  ought  to 
say,  not  what  he  actually  did  say.  Jerome  transla- 
ted more  faithfully.  And  it  so  happens  that  both 
in  those  parts  of  Origen's  works  translated  by  Je- 
rome, and  also  in  those  which  were  translated  by 
Ruffinus,  we  meet  with  testimonies  in  favor  of  infant 
baptism.  And  hence,  the  genuiiieness  of  these  pas- 
sages may  be  regarded  as  satisfactorily  established. 
It    appears,  then,  that   Mr.   Williams  has  made  a 

*  Doddridge's  Lectures,  vol.  2,  p.  385.     London  edition. 

7^ 


78 

"bold  alteration"  in  the  text  of  Doddridge,  to  make 
him  speak  a  little  more  directly  to  the  point. 

Let  us,  in  the  next  place,  see  how  Dr.  Gill  has 
proved  what  Doddridge  is  made  to  admit.  The 
"Reply"  says,  "Dr.  Gill  has  proved,"  that  my  quo- 
tation from  Origen  is  an  interpolation  of  Ruffinus. 
What  does  Dr.  Gill  say  in  relation  to  this  matter? 
Speaking  of  the  testimony  of  Origen  in  support  of 
infant  baptism,  he  says,  "This  is  taken  not  from 
any  of  his  genuine  Greek  writings,  only  from  some 
Latin  translations,  confessedly  interpolated."*  The 
reader  will  observe,  that  according  to  Mr.  Williams, 
a  point  is  proved,  when  it  is  boldly  asserted.  He 
says,  "Dr.  Gill  has  proved"  the  point  in  question. 
And  in  whnt  does  the  proof  consist?  In  a  naked  as- 
sertion; a  species  of  proof  exceedingly  convenient, 
where  arguments  are  scarce,  and  of  which  kind  of 
proof  Mr.  Williams'  little  book  is  full.  But,  after 
all,  what  does  Dr.  Gill  prove,  even  if  it  should  be 
granted,  that  a  naked  assertion  is  satisfactory  proof? 
Simply  that  the  writings  of  Origen  have  been  to 
some  extent  interpolated;  but  not  aa  Mr.  Williams 
would  have  the  reader  to  believe,  that  my  quotation 
is  an  interpolation.  There  may  be  many  interpola- 
tions in  a  work,  while  the  mass  of  the  work  remains 
uncorrupted.  Ruffinus  himself  admits  that  he  cor- 
rected Origen  in  some  places,  where  he  uttered  sen- 
timents at  variance  with  the  received  faith  of  the 
church.  But,  the  subject  of  infant  baptism  was  not 
at  this  time  a  matter  in  dispute;  and  as  Origen  on 
this  subject  held  the  commonly  received  faith  of  the 
church,  Ruffinus  had  no  occasion  to  make  interpola- 
tions in  the  writings  of  this  Father,  which  relate  to 
infant  baptism. 

*  Gill's  Body  of  Divinity,  vol.  .?,  p.  307.     I,ondon  rdilion. 


79 

In  conclusion  then,  Origen,  of  whom  Jerome  says, 
*'No  one,  unless  he  is  ignorant,  will  deny  that  he 
was  the  greatest  doctor  of  the  churches,  since  the 
days  of  the  apostles;"*  and  who  flourished  during 
the  first  half  of  the  third  century,  furnishes  very 
conclusive  evidence,  that  it  was  at  that  time  the 
practice  of  the  church  to  baptize  intants.  And 
though  it  is  true  that  the  oriiiinal  works  of  Origen 
have  to  a  great  extent  perished  with  the  lapse  of 
ages,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  his  views  on 
this  subject,  have  been  misrepresented  in  his  remains, 
which  have  been  preserved. 

The  next  witness  adduced  in  the  Lectures,  is  Cy- 
prian, bishop  of  Carthage,  w'ho  sutTered  martyrdom 
a  little  after  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  In  the 
year  :<!50  a  council  was  held  in  Carthage,  on  which 
occasion  a  question  came  up  for  consideration,  which 
originated  with  one  Fidus,  whether  it  was  proper  to 
baptize  a  child  before  the  eighth  day.  The  received 
opinion  of  the  christian  church  at  that  time  was,  that 
baptism  is  christian  circumcision.  And  from  this 
admitted  doctrine,  Fidus  drew  the  unwarranted  con- 
clusion, that  baptism  should  be  administered  as  cir- 
cumcision had  been,  on  the  eighth  day.  I  say  un- 
warranted conclusion;  because  it  by  no  means  fol- 
lows,  that  since  the  one  institution  has  supplied  the 
place  of  the  other,  therefore  all  the  circumstances 
connected  with  them  must  be  the  same.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  with  the  change  of 
dispensation,  and  of  the  institution,  there  would  be  a 
change  in  the  accompanying  circumstances. 

And  what  was  the  decision  of  the  Council  in  rela- 


*  Post  apostolos  ecclesiarum  magistruin,  nemo,  nesi  imper- 
itus,  nepfabit. 


80 

tion  to  the  question?  It  was,  that  the  administration 
of  baptism  is  not  to  be  restricted  to  any  particular 
day,  but  that  a  child  may  be  baptized  any  time  after 
its  birth.  An  account  of  the  decision  of  this  coun- 
cil, may  be  seen  in  an  Epistle  contained  in  the 
works  of  Cyprian.  In  this  Epistle,  Cyprian  and 
all  the  other  bishops  of  the  Council,  sixty-six  in 
number,  address  Fidus  in  the  following  language: 
*'As  to  the  case  of  infants,  whereas  you  judge  that 
they  must  not  be  baptized  within  two  or  three  days 
after  they  are  born;  and  that  the  rule  of  circumci- 
sion is  to  be  observed,  so  that  none  should  be  bap- 
tized and  sanctified  before  the?  eighth  day  after  he  is 
born;  we  were  all  in  our  council  of  the  contrary 
opinion."*  Any  person  who  is  capable  of  connect- 
ing two  ideas  together,  can  see  from  the  reply  of  the 
council,  that  the  difficulty  with  Fidus  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  lawfulness  of  infant  baptism;  for  that  it 
was  proper,  no  one  denied.  The  only  question  then 
agitated  was,  whether,  in  the  case  of  children,  bap- 
tism should  be  confined  to  the  eighth  day,  as  had 
been  the  law  in  relation  to  circumcision.  Fidus  was 
inclined  to  adopt  the  afiirmative;  but  the  unanimous 
decision  of  the  Council  was,  that  there  was  no  ne- 
cessity for  delay,  but  that  a  child  might  be  baptized 
on  the  second  or  third  day  after  its  birth. 

Now  let  us  return  to  the  "Reply,"  and  see  what 
it  has  to  say  in  relation  to  this  testimony. 

*  Quantum  vero  ad  causam  infantium  pertinct;  quos  dix- 
isti  intra  secundum  vel  tertium  diem,  quo  nati  sunt,  consti- 
tutos  baptizari,  non  oportere;  et  considerandam  esse  legem 
cirenmcisionis  anliquas,  ut  intra  octavum  diem,  eum  qui  na- 
tus  est,  baptizandum  ct  sanctificandum  non  putares,  longc 
aliud.in  concilio  nostro,  omnibus  visum  est.  Cyp.  Epist.  66, 
Bishop  Fell's  edition. 


81 

"But  to  the  Record.  Fidus  asked,  May  children 
be  baptized?"  The  record!  Yes,  Mr.  WilHams, 
this  is  a  "record"  of  your  own  fabrication,  but  not 
the  record  of  this  Council.  And  I  would  ask,  how 
can  you,  as  an  honest  man,  represent  Fidus  as  pro- 
posing a  question  which  would  intimate  that  he  en- 
tertained a  doubt  as  to  the  propriety  of  infant  bap- 
tism? I  am  left  no  alternative,  but  to  conclude 
either  that  you  have  never  seen  the  account  of  the 
proceedings  of  this  Council,  which  is  preserved  in 
the  works  of  Cyprian;  or  if  you  have,  you  must 
have  wilfully  misrepresented  it.  The  question  which 
Fidus  proposed  to  the  Council  was,  not  as  you  repre- 
sent it,  "May  children  be  baptized?"  but.  May  they 
be  baptized  before  the  eighth  day? 

If  it  were  necessary  to  adduce  any  further  evi- 
dence, to  show  that  Mr.  VVilliams  has  entirely  mis- 
represented the  facts  of  the  case,  it  might  be  added, 
that  Augustine  refers  particularly  to  the  proceedings 
of  this  Council,  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  make  it  per- 
fectly plain,  that  the  propriety  of  infant  baptism,  was 
not  the  point  in  dispute. 

Augustine,  in  his  treatise  on  the  Remission  of  sin, 
in  his  controversy  with  the  Pelagians,  proves  that 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  had  been  held  by  the 
church  from  the  beginning,  as  was  evident  from  the 
universal  practice  of  baptizing  infants.  And  among 
other  historical  proofs  in  support  of  his  position,  he 
refers  to  the  decision  of  this  Council  of  Carthage. 
And  he  says,  that  Cyprian,  who  presided  over  it, 
had  been  consulted  by  F'idus,  in  relation  to  the  pro- 
priety of  administering  baptism  before  the  8th  day.* 

*  Consultus  fuerat,  utrurn  hoc,  ante  octaviim  diem,  fieri 
debet.    Aug.  Op.  Tom.  7,  p.  306. 


82  . 

And  from  the  decision  of  the  Council,  that  "little 
children,  just  born  from  their  mother's  womb,"* 
might  with  propriety  be  baptized,  and  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  delay  their  baptism  until  the  eighth 
day,  he  argues  justly  that  it  was  then  the  doctrine  of 
the  church,  that  children  are  contaminated  with  the 
guilt  of  original  sin  from  their  birth. 

But  Mr.  Williams  does  not  stop  with  trifles.  Af- 
ter he  has  put  into  the  mouth  of  Fidus,  a  question 
entirely  different  from  the  one  which  Fidus  himself 
proposed  to  the  Council,  and  one  which  makes  him 
express  a  doubt  in  relation  to  the  propriety  of  infant 
baptism,  Mr.  Williams  then  proceeds  to  draw  an  in- 
ference from  it,  to  suit  his  own  purpose.  "The 
question,"  says  the  "Reply,"  "proves  that  infant 
baptism  was  a  novelty." 

"The  question!"  And  what  question?  Not  the 
question  which  Fidus  proposed  to  the  Council;  for 
that  supposes  that  the  church  at  that  time  was  per- 
fectly familiar  with  infant  baptism.  But  it  is  a 
question  which  you,  Mr.  Williams,  have  fabricated 
for  Fidus,  which  proves  that  infant  baptism  was  a 
novelty! 

To  conclude  my  remarks  on  this  point  then,  let 
me  request  the  reader  to  observe,  that  we  have  here 
the  testimony,  not  of  a  solitary  individual,  but  of  a 
Synod  composed  of  christian  ministers,  sixty-six  in 
number,  from  which  it  appears  that  in  the  third  cen- 
tury, the  propriety  of  infant  baptism  was  a  matter  in 
relation  to  which  there  was  no  diversity  of  opinion 
in  the  christian  church. 

*  Parvulos  a  materno  utero,  recentissimos. 


CHAPTER   VII. 


TESTIMONY     OF    AUGUSTINE. 


The  last  witness  introduced  by  the  Lectures,  to 
prove  that  the  prinnitive  church  regarded  infants  as 
proper  subjects  of  baptisnn,  is  Augustine,  the  re- 
nowned Bishop  of  Hippo.  This  venerable  Father 
was  born,  A.  D.  354,  and  after  an  active  and  useful 
life,  he  died  in  the  seventy-sixth  year  of  his  age. — 
Owing  to  the  peculiar  character  of  the  controversies 
with  which  the  church  was  agitated  in  the  age  in 
which  he  lived,  Augustine  is  led  to  refer  to  infant 
baptism,  as  one  of  the  well  known  usages  of  the 
christian  church,  nnore  frequently  than  any  writer 
who  had  preceded  him.  During  almost  the  whole 
of  his  ministerial  life,  Augustine  was  engaged  in  the 
controversy  with  the  Donatists  and  the  Pelagians. 
Particularly  in  his  writings  against  the  Pelagians, 
who  rejected  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  Augustine 
continually  refers  to  infant  baptism,  as  an  evidence 
that  the  church  had,  all  along,  held  the  doctrine  of 
the  original  depravity  of  our  nature.  And  it  espe- 
cially deserves  attention,  that  he  refers  to  infant 
baptism,  not  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture,  but  he  appeals  to  the  universal 
practice  of  the  church  in  baptizing  infants,  as  his- 
torical evidence  that  the  church  had  uniformly  held 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 


84 

The  writings  of  Augustine  afford  such  incontro- 
vertible evidence,  that  infant  baptism  was  one  of  the 
universally  received  doctrines  of  the  church,  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  that  the  very  mention  of 
his  name  seems  to  throw  Mr.  Williams  into  a  par- 
oxysm of  rage,  so  that  he  speaks  "unadvisedly  with 
his  lips."  Taking  his  leave  of  every  thing  like  dig- 
nity and  decorum,  he  descends  to  the  personal  abuse 
of  this  venerable  Father.  For  example,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams calls  Augustine,  "this  fellow;"  "this  active 
tool  of  the  pope;"  "this  murderous  monk,"  who 
"served  the  cause  of  popery  and  the  devil." 

The  reader,  disgusted  with  this  low  and  slander- 
ous abuse  of  a  worthy  man,  would  like  to  knovv 
what  is  said  of  Augustine  by  those  who  have  some 
knowledge  of  that  about  which  they  write.  Speak- 
ing of  the  efforts  which  were  made  to  sustain  the 
cause  of  truth  in  the  fifth  century,  the  pious  and  in- 
telli""ent  Milner  remarks,  Augustine  "was  the  great 
instrument  of  reviving  the  knowledge  of  evangeli- 
cal truth.  By  a  very  remarkable  work  of  divine 
wrace  on  his  own  soul,  he  was  qualified  to  contend 
with  the  growing  corruption.  For  a  thousand  years 
and  upwards,  the  light  of  divine  grace  which  shone 
here  and  there  in  individuals,  during  the  dreary 
night  of  superstition,  was  nourished  by  his  writ- 
ings, which,  next  to  the  sacred  Scriptures,  were  the 
guides  of  men  who  feared  God;  nor  have  we  in  all 
history  an  instance  of  so  extensive  utility  derived  to 
the  church  from  the  writings  of  men."*  The  fol- 
lowing character  of  this  distinguished  Father  is 
drawn  by  the  learned  Mosheim:  "Augustine,  Bishop 
of  Hippo  in  Africa,  is  one  whose  fame  is  spread 

*  Milner's  History,  vol.  1,  p.  448. 


85 

throughout  the  christian  world.  And  he  certainly 
possessed  many  and  great  excellencies,  a  superior 
genius,  a  constant  love  and  pursuit  of  truth,  ad- 
mirable patience  of  labor,  unquestionable  piety,  and 
acuteness  and  discrinni nation  by  no  means  con- 
temptible."* 

And  not  only  does  Mr.  Williams  betray  an  un- 
christian spirit  in  traducing  the  character  of  an  emi- 
nently worthy  man,  but  also  manifests  pitiable  igno- 
rance of  ecclesiastical  history.  Of  Augustine,  he 
says,  "He  was  sent  a  missionary  from  the  church 
of  Rome  to  Britain."  Augustine,  the  Bishop  of 
Hippo,  sent  as  a  missionary  to  Britain!  Why,  my 
dear  sir,  the  children  in  our  Sabbath  schools  wilP 
laugh  at  your  blunders.  Africa  and  not  Britain, 
was  the  scene  of  Augustine's  labors.  There  was 
indeed  a  monk  of  the  same  name,  who  is  sometimes 
styled  in  history,  the  Apostle  of  Britain,  but  who 
lived  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the 
age  of  the  Bishop  of  Hippo,  who  was  sent  a  mis- 
sionary to  Britain,  by  Gregory  the  Great.  And 
you  have  mixed  up  the  history  of  these  two  men, 
who  flourished  at  the  distance  of  nearly  two  centu- 
ries from  each  other,  and  have  fabricated  a  horrible 
tale  of  blood  and  carnage,  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
hibiting the  character  of  the  Bishop  of  Hippo  in  the 
most  unfavorable  light;  and  charge  him  with  deeds 
with  which  he  had  no  more  concern  than  the  Pas- 
tor of  the  ^'■First  Baptized  Church^''  of  Pittsburgh. 
So  much  for  your  knowledge  of  church  history! 

But  the  "Reply"  further  represents  x^ugustine,  as 
an  "active  tool  of  the  Pope."  The  title  "Pope,"  or 
Father,  was  originally  applied  to  all  christian  Bish- 

*  Murdock's  Mosheim,  vol.  I,  p.  252. 

8 


86 

ops;  but  in  process  of  time  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ar- 
rogated it  to  himself  exclusively,  claiming  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  vicar  of  Christ  and  the  head  of  the 
whole  christian  church  throughout  the  world.  In 
this  modern  acceptation  of  the  title,  there  was  no 
Pope  in  the  age  of  Augustine.  A  notable  example 
to  prove  that  the  Roman  Bishop  had  not  yet  attain- 
ed that  supremacy,  is  furnished  by  the  history  of 
the  Pelagian  controversy.  After  two  different  Afri- 
can councils  had  condemned  the  heresy  of  Pelagius, 
such  an  artful  representation  of  their  sentiments 
was  made  to  Zosimus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  by  Pelagius 
and  Celestius,  that  the  Bishop  was  imposed  on,  and 
pronounced  a  decision  in  their  favor.  But,  instead 
of  acquiescing  in  this  decision,  the  African  Bishops, 
at  the  head  of  whom  was  Augustine,  wrote  to  Zosi- 
mus, exposing  the  artifice  of  these  wily  corrupters 
of  the  truth,  and  communicated  correct  information 
with  regard  to  the  dangerous  tendency  of  their  er- 
rors. The  consequence  was,  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
better  informed,  changed  his  mind  and  condemned 
the  system  of  Pelagius,  as  heretical.  Augustine  un- 
derstood the  character  of  the  Pelagian  heresy  much 
better  than  the  Roman  Bishop,  and  instead  of  re- 
garding his  decisioti  as  infallible,  Augustine  cor- 
rected his  mistake,  and  induced  him  to  reverse  his 
sentence  after  he  had  decided  in  favor  of  Pelagius. 
And  yet  Mr.  Williams  would  have  the  reader  to  be- 
lieve, that  Augustine  was  an  "active  tool  of  the 
Pope!" 

After  endeavoring  to  injure  the  reputation  of  Au- 
gustine, by  charging  him  with  things  of  which  he 
never  heard,  Mr.  Williams  proceeds  to  give  us  a 
further  display  of  his  knowledge  of  church  history. 
He  informs   us  that,  "under  the  influence  of  this 


87 

monk,  a  council  was  convened  in  Carthage,  A.  D. 
416,  10  condemn  the  heresy  of  Pelagius,  and  that 
from  Carthage,  fourteen  of  them  adjourned  to  Melo 
in  Numedia.  At  this  Council  Augustine  presided, 
and  succeeded  in  procuring  the  passage  of  the  fol- 
lowing decree:  It  is  the  pleasure  of  all  the  Bishops 
present  in  the  holy  Synod,  to  order  that  whosoever 
denieth,  that  infants  newly  born  of  their  mothers 
are  to  baptized,  shall  be  accursed:"  p.  48.  Here 
our  church  historian  gives  us  an  account  of  a  Coun- 
cil held  in  '■'■Melo  in  Numedia.^''  Melo  in  Nume- 
dia! There  never  was  such  a  place  on  the  face  of 
our  globe;  and  if  there  ever  was  a  Council  held  in 
Melo  in  Numedia,  it  must  have  been  in  a  different 
planet  from  that  which  we  inhabit,  and  thither  \ 
shall  not  undertake  to  follow  Mr.  Williams. 

In  the  year  416,  to  which  Mr.  Williams  refers, 
there  were  two  Councils  held  in  Africa,  which  had 
reference  to  the  Pelagian  heresy,  one  at  Carthage 
and  the  other  at  Milevum  in  Numidia.  At  the  first 
of  these  Councils  Augustine  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  present,  but  the  latter  he  attended.  It  is 
probable,  that  it  is  to  the  latter  of  these  two  Coun- 
cils, that  our  historian  refers.  However,  there  is 
some  difficulty  in  the  way  of  this  supposition;  for 
his  Council  at  "Melo  in  Numedia,"  he  informs  us, 
was  composed  of  only  ^^ fourteen''''  Bishops,  whereas 
sixty-one  Bishops  attended  the  Council  at  Milevum. 
The  difference  between  fourteen  and  sixty-one, 
however,  might  be  considered  a  small  mistake  for 
Mr.  Williams.  But  if  this  is  indeed  the  Council  to 
which  he  refers,  the  greatest  difficulty  in  his  way  is, 
there  is  no  such  decree  among  the  acts  of  this 
Council,  as  that  which  Mr.  Williams  mentions. 
The  members  of  this  Council,  sixty-one   in    num- 


88 

ber,  in  an  epistle  addressed  to  Innocent,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  gave  him  an  account  of  their  proceedings; 
and  in  an  epistle  addressed  to  them  in  reply.  Inno- 
cent signified  his  approbation  of  what  the  Council 
had  done.  But  neither  in  the  epistle  of  the  Council, 
nor  in  the  reply  of  Innocent,  both  of  which  are  pre- 
served in  the  works  of  Augustine,*  is  there  any 
mention  made  of  such  a  decree.  And  yet  Mr. 
Williams  says,  that  the  "decree,"  to  which  he  re- 
fers, was  sent  to  Rome  and  ratified  by  Innocent. 

In  the  year  418  a  Council  was  held  at  Carthage, 
composed  of  two  hundred  and  fourteen  Bishops, 
among  the  acts  of  which  is  found  the  decree  to 
which  it  would  appear  Mr.  Williams  refers.  It 
may  be  remarked,  that  some  writers  have  erron- 
eously represented  this  as  one  of  the  decrees  of 
the  Council  of  Milevum,  already  mentioned.  This 
Council  which  was  held  at  Carthage  A.  D.  418,. 
condemned  the  opinion  which  we  have  seen  was- 
maintained  by  some,  as  early  as  the  third  century, 
namely,  that  children  should  not  be  baptized  before 
the  eighth  day;  and  also  the  heresy  of  Pelagius, 
who  maintained  that  baptism,  in  the  case  of  child- 
ren, was  not  for  the  remission  of  sin.  The  canon 
of  the  Council  is  in  the  following  words:  "It  is  our 
pleasure,  that  whosoever  denies  that  infants  newly 
born  from  the  womb  of  their  mother,  may  be  bap- 
tized; or  says  that  they  are  to  be  baptized  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  but  that  they  derive  nothing  of 
original  sin  from  Adam  which  needs  to  be  expiated 
in  the  laver  of  regeneration,  let  him  be  anathema. ""f 

«Aug.  Op.  Tom.  2.     Paris  ed.  1586. 

+  Placiiit,  ut  quicunque,  parvulos  recentes  ab  uteris  mat- 
rum,  baptizandos  negat;  aut  dicit,  in  remissionem,  quidem, 


89 

It  is  evidently  Mr.  Williams'  design  to  produce 
upon  the  mind  of  the  reader,  the  impression,  that 
through  the  influence  of  Augustine,  the  Council  was 
induced' to  establish  a  decree  in  favor  of  infant  bap- 
tism, in  opposition  to  those  who  rejected  it.  But 
that  is  not  a  correct  representation  of  the  design  of 
the  Council.  There  was  in  reality  no  dispute  in  the 
church  on  this  subject;  and  there  was  no  call  for  a 
decree  with  regard  to  a  point  universally  admitted. 
This  is  .abundantly  evident  from  the  writings  of  Au- 
gustine. The  question  before  the  Council  was,  not 
whether  children  may  be  baptized,  but  whether 
children  newly  born,*  might  be  baptized,  or  whether 
their  baptism  should  be  delayed  till  the  eighth  day? 
As  we  have  already  seen,  this  question  came  before 
the  Council  of  Carthage  which  was  assembled  in  the 
days  of  Cyprian.  And  in  referring  to  the  decision 
of  the  Council,  as  I  have  before  shown,  Augustine 
employs  the  same  language.  The  decision  of  this 
Council,  then,  was  not  simply  that  infants  might  be 
baptized,  but  that  infants  just  born  might  be  baptized, 
and  that  there  was  no  necessity,  as  in  the  case  of  cir- 
cumcision, to  defer  baptism  till  the  eighth  day. 

1  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  for  any  man,  who 
has  ever  examined  the  works  of  Augustine,  to  enter- 
tain a  doubt  with  regard  to  the  prevalence  of  infant 
baptism  throughout  the  christian  world,  in  the  age 
in  which  this  Father  lived.  It  has  already  been  re- 
marked, that  Augustine  was  engaged  in  controversy 
with   the   Donatists   and  with  the  Pelagians.     And 

peccatoram  eos  baptizari,  sed  nihil  ex  Adam,  trahere  origi- 
nalis  peccati,  quod  regenerationis  lavacro  expietur;  anathe- 
ma sit. — Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  vol.  1,  page  470. 

*  Parvulos  recentes  ab  uteris  matrum. 

8# 


90 

from  the  nature  of  the  controversy  in  which  he  was 
engaged,  he  is  led  very  frequently  to  speak  of  bap- 
tism, and  often  of  the  baptism  of  children.  But 
Augustine  had  no  controversy  with  either  Donatists 
or  Pelagians,  in  relation  to  the  propriety  of  infant 
baptism.  This  was  admitted  on  all  hands.  And 
from  this  universally  admitted  usage  of  the  church, 
Augustine  reasoned  in  relation  to  matters  in  contro- 
versy between  him  and  his  opponents. 

Mr.  Williams  insinuates  that  the  Donatists  reject- 
ed infant  baptism.  But  for  such  an  insinuation  he 
has  no  authority.  Though  Augustine  has  written 
much  against  them  and  opposed  them  with  much 
warmth,  he  no  where  prefers  any  such  charge 
against  them.  The  Donatists  separated  from  the 
Catholic  (not  the  Roman  Catholic)  church,  on  the 
account  of  a  difference  with  regard  to  discipline 
rather  than  doctrine.  They  contended  that  the 
Catholic  church  had  become  contaminated  by  hav- 
ing Traditors  in  her  fellowship;  and  consequently 
they  refused  to  have  communion  with  her,  and  dis- 
owned her  ministry.  VVhen,  therefore,  any  one  for- 
sook the  fellowship  of  the  Catholic  church  and  join- 
ed their  party,  he  was  re-baptized.  The  Donatists 
did  not  reject  infant  baptism:  but  they  would  not  ac- 
knowledge the  validity  of  baptism  as  administered 
in  the  Catholic  church,  whether  in  the  case  of  infants 
or  adults. 

Augustine  has  written  four  books  against  Cresco- 
nius  the  Donatist,  in  one  of  which  he  gives  an  ex- 
tract of  an  epistle,  which  he  had  received  from  him. 
In  this  epistle,  Cresconius  says,  "Between  us  and 
you  there  is  one  religion,  the  same  sacraments,  and 
no  diversity  in  christian  usages."* 

•  Inter    nos,   una    religio,  cadcm    sacramenta^   nihil    in 


91 

In  the  conclusion  of  his  fourth  book  against  the 
Donatists,  Augustine  refers  to  the  case  of  the  peni- 
tent thief,  who  was  saved  through  faith  in  Christ, 
though  he  was  not  baptized,  and  then  exhibits  in 
contrast  the  case  of  those  who  are  saved  through 
baptism,  though  not  capable  of  exercising  faith. 
And  then  he  adds,  "Which  the  whole  church  holds 
as  delivered  in  the  case  of  infants  who  are  baptized, 
who  certainly  cannot  yet  believe  with  the  heart 
unto  righteousness,  nor  confess  with  the  mouth  unto 
salvation,  as  the  thief  did."*  No  man  possessed  of 
common  sense  would  have  employed  such  language 
as  this  in  a  controversy  with  the  Donatists,  had  they 
not  received  infant  baptism  in  common  with  the 
Catholic  church. 

I  cannot  deny  myself  the  pleasure  of  giving  an- 
other extract  from  this  distinguished  Father,  both  on 
account  of  the  evidence  which  it  affords,  that  infant 
baptism  was  universally  received,  and  because  of  the 
correct  distinction  which  is  made  between  the  exter- 
nal rite  of  baptism  and  that  internal  change  of  heart 
of  which  it  is  significant.  Augustine  writes  as  fol- 
lows: "From  all  which  it  appears,  that  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  is  one  thing,  and  the  conversion  of 
the  heart  another;  but  the  salvation  of  man  is  com- 
pleted by  both.  Nor  are  we  to  suppose,  that  if  one 
is  wanting,  it  follows  that  the  other  is  wanting,  since 
fls  in  the  case  of  an  infant,  there  may  be  baptism, 
where  there  is  not  the  conversion  of  the  heart;  and 
as  in  the  case  of  the  penitent  thief,  there  may  be  the 
conversion  of  the  heart,  without  baptism;  God  Al- 

Christiana  observatione  diversum.     Aug.  Op.  Tom.  7, 
page  170. 

*  Aug.  contra  Donatistas,  Lib.  4,  chap.  23. 


92 

mighty  making  up  in  .both  cases,  that  which  was  not 
wilfully  wanting."* 

In  his  controversy  with  the  Pelagians,  Augustine 
continually  refers  to  infant  baptism,  as  an  established 
usage  of  the  church,  universally  received.  Among 
other  radical  errors  embraced  in  the  system  of  Pela- 
gianism,  the  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
occupies  a  prominent  place.  Pelagius  taught  that 
the  sin  of  Adam  hurt  none  but  himself;  and  that  an 
infant  is  as  fr€e  from  sin  as  Adam  was,  when  he 
was  at  first  created.  In  opposing  the  heresy  of  Pe- 
lagius, Augustine  not  only  proved  that  it  was  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God,  but,  that  it  is  inconsistent 
with  t-he  faith  held  in  the  church  from  the  beginning. 
And  in  establishing  the  point,  that  the  church  had 
^11  along  held  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  he  appeals 
to  the  universal  practice  of  the  church  in  relation  to 
-infant  baptism.  Baptism  with  water  is  significant 
of  spiritual  washing,  and  points  to  the  blood  of  Je- 
sus, through  which  we  are  able  to  obtain  remission 
of  sin.  But  if  an  infant  is  free  from  the  pollution  of 
sin,  it  can  have  no  need  of  spiritual  cleansing,  and 
the  application  of  baptism  would  be  unmeaning. 
And  hence,  Augustine  argues  that  as  it  had  always 
been  the  practice  of  the  christian  church  to  baptize 
infants,  therefore  the  church  had  always  held  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin. 

Neither  Pelagius,  nor  his  coadjutor  Celestius, 
intimated  any  doubt  as  to  the  propriety  of  infant 
baptism.  On  the  other  hand,  they  freely  admitted 
that  it  had  always  been  the  practice  of  the  church 
to  baptize  infants,  and  that  the  practice  was  proper. 

I  had  collected  various  other  testimonies,  in  favor 

*  Aug.  contra  Donatistas,  Lib.  4,  chap.  25. 


/  93     . 

of  infant  baptism,  from  the  works  of  Athanasius, 
Chrysostom  and  Jerome.  But  lest  I  should  exhaust 
the  patience  of  the  reader,  I  shall  not  introduce 
them  at  present,  but  shall  close  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject by  a  few  remarks  intended  to  present  the  his- 
torical argument  in  its  true  light. 

From  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  was 
born  before  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  who 
suffered  martyrdom  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  we  learn  that  infant  baptism  was  held  by 
the  church  in  the  age  immediately  succeeding  the 
apostles.  The  writings  of  Origen  and  Cyprian, 
who  flourished  in  the  third  century,  furnish  satisfac- 
tory evidence  that  it  was  the  practice  of  the  church 
to  baptize  infants  in  that  age.  And  the  writings  of 
Augustine,  who  was  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
bishops  of  the  fourth  century,  are  full  of  evidence, 
not  only  that  infant  baptism  was  at  that  time  among 
the  usages  of  the  church,  but  that  from  the  begin- 
ning, it  had  been  the  custom  of  the  church  to  bap- 
tize infants. 

Between  Augustine  and  the  Pelagians  there  was 
no  dispute  with  regard  to  the  propriety  of  infant 
baptism.  All  admitted  that  it  was  proper,  and  that 
it  had  been  the  uniform  practice  of  the  church. 
Proof  of  this  might  be  given  to  an  indefinite  extent. 
Let  one  example  suffice.  In  a  creed  or  exhibition  of 
their  faith  drawn  up  by  Celestius,  we  have  these 
words:  "We  own  that  infants  ought,  according  to 
the  rvle  of  the  universal  churchy  and  according  to 
the  sentence  of  the  gospel,  to  be  baptized  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.*     With  the  inconsistency  and 

*"  Infantes  autera  debere  baptizari  in  remissionem  pecca- 
torum,  secundum  regulam  universalis  ecclesiae,  et  secundum 


94 

duplicity  of  Celestius,  in  admitting  that  infants  were 
to  be  baptized  lor  the  remission  of  sin,  while  he  at 
the  same  time  denied  they  were  contaminated  with 
sin,  we  have  no  concern.  It  is  the  fact  admitted 
both  by  Pelagius  and  Celestius,  his  fellow. laborer, 
that  according  to  the  rule  of  the  universal  church, 
and  the  sentence  of  the  gospel,  infants  should  be 
baptized,  that  the  reader  is  desired  particularly  to 
notice.  This  no  one  in  that  age  pretended  to  deny. 
Even  Pelagius  himself  complained  that  he  was  "de- 
famed" by  his  opponents,  when  they  represented  his 
principles  with  regard  to  original  depravity,  as  lead- 
ing to  a  virtual  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  mfant 
baptism. 

And  while  we  have  this  unbroken  chain  of  testi- 
mony from  the  apostolic  age,  in  favor  of  infant  bap- 
tism, no  writer  in  the  christian  church  can  be  pro- 
duced, during  the  first  four  centuries,  who  has  op- 
posed the  baptism  of  children,  as  inconsistent  with 
the  system  of  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  It 
is  true  as  we  have  seen  that  the  erratic  Tertullian, 
recommended  the  delay  of  baptism,  especially  in  the 
case  of  little  children,  as  "wore  'profitable;^''  but 
even  he  did  not  pretend  to  say,  that  the  baptism  of 
children  was  unscriptural.  Pelagius,  a  man  of 
learning  and  extensive  information,  who  was  a  na- 
tive of  Britain;  who  spent  some  time  in  Africa;  who 
visited  the  churches  of  Palestine,  and  who  lived  a 
long  time  at  Rome,  the  centre  of  religious  intelli- 
gence, and  whose  peculiar  views  in  relation  to  the 
original  depravity  of  our  nature,  presented  a  strong 
inducement  to  reject  infant  baptism,  yet  admitted, 

evangelii  sententiani,  confitemur. — Aug",  de  pec.  Originale, 
Lib.  2,  chap.  5. 


95 

that  it  was  in  accordance  with  "the  rule  of  the  uni- 
versal church  and  the  sentence  of  the  gospel,"  to 
baptize  children. 

Since,  therefore,  it  was  the  practice  of  the  church 
to  baptize  infants  during  the  first  four  centuries  im- 
mediately succeeding  the  age  of  the  apostles,  as  is 
evident  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  which  have 
come  down  to  us;  as  no  writer  can  be  produced  who, 
during  this  period,  opposed  this  practice  as  contrary 
to  the  law  of  Christ;  and  as  the  most  distinguished 
writers  of  the  church,  in  their  controversies  with 
heretical  teachers,  refer  to  infant  baptism,  as  a  usage 
of  the  universal  church  from  the  beginning;  there- 
fore, we  conclude  that  the  testimony  of  history  is, 
that  infant  baptism  is  of  apostolic  origin. 


CHAPTER    VIIJ. 

MODE    OF  BAPTISM.       MEANING    OF  THE    WORDS  BAP- 
TIZE AND    BAPTISM,  IN    THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 

Having  ascertained  who  are  the  proper  subjects  of 
baptism,  the  Lectures,  in  the  next  place,  inquire  into 
the  proper  manner  of  administering  this  interesting 
ordinance.  This  branch  of  the  general  subject  is 
regarded  as,  in  itself,  of  much  less  importance  than 
the  former;  but  in  relation  to  this,  as  well  as  to  every 
thing  else  connected  with  the  faith  and  practice  of 
the  christian,  it  becomes  us  to  be  ready  always  to 
give  an  answer  to  every  man  that  asketh  a  reason  of 
the  hope  that  is  in  us.  As  the  Lectures  are  ad- 
dressed to  christians,  who  it  is  supposed  prize  the 
truth  and  desire  to  understand  it,  this  part  of  the 
subject  is  introduced  with  some  remarks  relative  to 
the  peculiar  nature  of  sacraments  generally,  and  of 
baptism  in  particular.  In  a  sacrament  there  are 
two  things  to  be  considered:  the  external  sign,  and 
the  spiritual  reality  which  is  thereby  represented. 
In  baptism,  as  all  admit,  the  sign  is  water.  That 
particular  property  of  water,  to  which  in  baptism 
there  is  special  reference,  is  its  cleansing  virtue. 
Hence  the  language  which  Ananias  addressed  to 
Saul  of  Tarsus:  "Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash 
away  thy  sins.^''  Bapiism  with  water  teaches  us,  by 
a  significant  figure,  that  we  are  the  subjects  of  mora! 
9 


98 

pollution,  and  at  the  same  time,  that  God  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  grace,  has  made  provision  for  our 
spiritual  cleansing.  But  every  one  who  has  any 
knowledge  of  the  Bible,  knows  that  it  is  not  the  wa- 
ter of  baptism,  which  cleanseth  the  soul  from  the  de- 
filement of  sin.  The  water  is  nothing  more  than 
the  external  sign  or  figure,  which  represents  the  pu- 
rifying efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Jesus.  To  apply 
the  blood  of  atonement  to  the  heart  and  conscience, 
for  the  purpose  of  cleansing  from  sin,  is  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  hence  the  Scriptures 
speak  of  a  twofold  baptism:  the  one  external,  which 
is  with  water;  the  other  internal,  which  is  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  "Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God."*  Since,  then,  the  water  in  baptism  is  no- 
thing more  than  the  outward  sign  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, it  would  be  strange  indeed,  if  the  validity  of 
the  ordinance  depended  upon  the  quantity  of  water, 
or  upon  the  precise  mode  of  its  application. 

We  have  said  that  the  application  of  water  in  bap- 
tism, is  significant  of  washing.  To  this  fact  there 
seems  evidently  to  be  an  allusion,  in  the  words  of 
the  apostle:  "According  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us 
by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly, 
through  Jesus  Christ."t  It  is  not,  however,  a  literal 
but  a  figurative  washing  which  is  effected  in  bap- 
tism. The  outward  washing  of  the  body  with  wa- 
ter, is  significant  of  the  spiritual  cleansing  of  the 
soul,  which  is  eflTected  by  the  application  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  What  I  regard  then 
as  essential  to  the  proper  administration  of  baptism, 

*  John  3:5.  t  Titus  3:5,  6. 


is,  that  the  water  be  applied  to  the  subject  according 
to  some  mode  significant  of  washins:.  And  as  the 
Scriptures  represent  washing,  as  being  effected  in  a 
variety  of  ways,  our  conclusion  is,  that  the  validity 
of  the  ordinance  does  not  depend  upon  the  precise 
mode  according  to  which  the  water  is  applied  to  the 
subject.  But  as  one  of  the  common  ways  of  wash- 
ing referred  to  in  the  Bible,  is  that  of  sprinkling  the 
cleansing  element  upon  the  person  or  thing  to  be 
washed,  baptism  by  sprinkling  is  a  Scriptural  mode, 
which  we  decidedly  prefer,  and  to  which  exclusively 
we  conform  in  practice. 

It  is  t'reely  conceded  in  the  Lectures,  that  if  it  can 
be  made  appear  that  the  Author  of  Christianity  has 
appointed,  that  baptism  should  be  administered  in 
any  one  particular  way  and  in  none  other,  then  we 
should  sacredly  conform  to  that  mode.  The  author 
of  the  "Reply"  would  have  his  readers  to  believe 
that  this  is  the  fact;  and  that  the  only  way  in  which 
this  ordinance  can  be  administered,  is  by  immersion. 

Mr.  Williams  condemns  the  use  of  the  term  mode 
in  this  controversy,  altogether,  and  imputes  to  his 
opponents  a  most  unhallowed  motive  in  employing 
it.  He  says,  page  50,  "Here  I  would  premise,  that 
the  term  mode  is  made  use  of  by  our  opponents, /or 
the  sole  purpose  of  destroying  the  ordinance^'*  of 
baptism.  Observe,  he  does  not  content  himself  with 
saying,  that  our  manner  of  speaking  about  the  mode 
of  baptism,  naturally  leads  to  the  destruction  of  the 
ordinance.  Even  such  a  statement  would  have  been 
untrue.  But  he  goes  much  farther.  He  presumes 
to  enter  the  bosoms  of  those  who  differ  from  him;  to 
explore  the  secret  recesses  of  their  hearts,  and  to 
declare  to  the  world  the  motives  which  influence 
them.     "The  term  mode  is  made  use  of  by  our  op- 


100 

ponents,"  he  says,  ^^for  the  sole  purpose  of  destroy- 
ing the  ordinance!"  Such  insolence  deserves  no 
reply! 

After  having  attributed  to  his  opponents  a  most 
diabolical  "purpose,"  the  author  of  the  "Reply" 
proceeds  to  observe,  that  "many  Baptist  writers," 
"out  of  courtesy,"  (!)  use  the  term  mode  in  contro- 
versy on  this  subject;  and  that  in  doing  so,  "both 
truth  and  the  laws  of  language  have  been  violated, 
as  the  necessary  consequence."  But  as  for  himself 
(good  man!)  he  cannot  be  guilty  of  so  great  an  im- 
propriety as  to  speak  of  the  mode  of  baptism,  and  so 
violate  both  truth  and  the  laws  of  language,  "for 
the  sake  of  politeness  to  men."  What  a  valiant 
and  unbending  defender  of  the  faith! 

But,  Mr.  Williams,  if  there  is  no  mode  of  baptism, 
and  it  would  be  a  violation  both  of  truth  and  the 
laws  of  language,  to  speak  of  the  mode  of  baptism, 
will  you  be  so  kind  as  to  inform  the  christian  public 
how  the  ordinance  is  to  be  administered?  I  suppose, 
if  a  person  is  to  be  baptized  at  all,  he  must  be  bap- 
tized according  to  some  mode.  But  if  there  is  no 
mode,  and  it  would  be  to  violate  truth  even  to  speak 
of  the  mode  of  baptism,  then  I  ask,  in  the  name  of 
common  sense,  if  there  is  no  mode  of  baptism,  how 
can  the  ordinance  possibly  be  administered? 

After  remonstrating  against  the  use  of  the  term 
mode  in  this  controversy,  Mr.  Williams,  in  the  next 
place  proceeds  to  give  his  readers  an  exhibition  of 
his  philosophical  and  mathematical  attainments. — 
But  what  is  his  precise  object  in  calling  in  philoso- 
phy and  mathematics  to  his  aid,  is  not  very  appa- 
rent. From  the  remarks  which  precede  his  "Philo- 
sophical View,"  one  would  suppose  that  his  design 
is  to  prove  that  there  is  no  ^^mode^^  of  baptism,"  and 


101 

that  to  use  the  term  mode  in  this  controversy,  is  to 
violate  both  truth  and  the  laws  of  language.  But 
from  what  immediately  follows,  it  would  seem  that 
Jiis  object  is  to  prove  that  sprinkling  and  immersion 
.are  not  the  same  thing,  according  to  that  mathe- 
matical axiom,  that  "Two  things  cannot  be  one 
.thing,  while  totally  distinct." 

Come,  then,  gentle  reader,  and  enjoy  a  little  re- 
,llef  from  the  tedium  of  theological  controversy, 
.while  you  sit  at  the  feet  of  our  philosopher  and  take 
a  lesson  in  the  sciences.  On  page  50  of  the  "Re- 
ply," the  author  makes  the  following  remark  under 
the  head  of  "Philosophica.l  View:"  "Every  dis- 
tinct substance  possesses  a  form,  mode  or  figure, 
peculiar  to  itself."  A  truly  philosophical  remark! 
Will  Mr.  Williams  have  the  goodness,  in  another 
"philosophical  view,"  to  favor  the  public  with  a  de- 
scription ;Of  the  form,  mode  or  figure,  of  the  human 
soul?  It  will,  I  suppose,  be  admitted  that  the  soul  is 
a  "distinct  substance,"  or  something  which  exists; 
but  I  think  its  form  or  figure  has  not  yet  been  de- 
scribed in  any  of  our  books  on  philosophy!  Rut 
while  it  will  be  admitted  that  all  material  substances 
to  which,  I  suppose,  our  philosopher  more  especially 
refers,  have  a  form  or  figure  peculiar  to  themselves, 
yet  it  would  seem  to  require  a  degree  of  sagacity 
which  does  not  ordinarily  fall  to  the  lot  of  man,  to 
discern  the  bearing  which  this  fact  has  upon  the 
question  relative  to  the  proper  manner  of  adminis- 
tering baptism. 

Having  in  one  short  sentence  given  a  "philosophi- 
cal view,"  the  author,  as  though  impatient  to  range 
throughout  the  whole  circle  of  the  sciences,  launches 
forth  into  the  depths  of  mathematics,  and  makes 
the  following  sagacious  observation:  "Mathematical 
9* 


IG2 

science  ascertains  the  nicer  shades  of  distinction  be- 
tween the  forms  of  substances  and  modes  of  action^''' 
Here  is  a  discovery  in  mathematics  of  which  neither 
Kepler,  Des  Cartes,  nor  Newton,  ever  dreamed! 
Mathematical  science  ascertains  the  nicer  shades  of 
distinction,  between  different  '■'■modes  of  action!'''' 
What  a  pitiful  thing  it  is,  Mr.  Williams,  to  bring  in 
philosophy  and  mathematics  into  a  discussion  of  this 
nature,  as  though  the  object  were  to  induce  plain  and 
simple  people  to  think  that  your  learning  is  pro- 
digious! 

"  O  wad  some  power  the  giftie  gie  us, 

To  see  oursels  as  ithers  see  us, 

It  wad  fra  monie  a  blunder  free  us, 

An'  foolish  notion." 

Having  given  us  a  "philosophical  view,"  and 
likewise  a  taste  of  "mathematical  science,"'  Mr.  Wil- 
liams gives  us  a  definition  of  the  words  which  are 
translated,  baptize  and  baptism,  from  which  his  read- 
ers may  see  his  amazing  proficiency  in  Greek: — 
"The  meaning  of  bapt'izo,  according  to  classic 
usage  and  all  the  Lexicons,  is  dipping;"  page  52. 
"The  Greek  word  baptize  means  immersion  and  no- 
thing else;"  page  55.  This  is  so  very  plain,  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Williams,  that  he  would  have  his  readers 
to  believe  that  I  am  very  anxious  to  hide  the  Greek 
from  my  people,  lest  they  should  discover  how  I  am 
misleading  them.  Hear  him!  "The  Dr.  seems  to 
be  reluctant  to  let  his  readers  even  have  one  peep 
into  the  Greek  langtiage.  If  they  could  but  learn 
the  al|)habet  and  refer  to  any  Lexicon  in  the  Dr's. 
library,  they  would  see  that  the  Greek  word  baptizo 
means  immersion  and  nothing  else.''  No  doubt  Mr. 
Williams  felt  very  well  pleased  with  himself  after 
discharging  such  a  volley  of  wit!     How  he  has  ex- 


103 

posed  the  artifices  of  the  Dr.!  The  Dr.,  simple  mani 
thought  to  keep  his  congregation  from  taking  "a  peep 
into  the  Greek  language,"  that  so  he  might  hold 
them  in  ignorance!  But  the  pastor  of  the  first  bap- 
tized church  of  Pittsburgh,  benevolent  soul!  has  let 
out  the  secret,  that  "baptizo  means  immersion  and 
nothing  else!" 

Whether  Mr.  Williams  knows  it  or  not,  I  will  not 
^undertake  to  determine;  but  if  he  will  walk  over  to 
the  Western  University,  any  of  the  boys,  who  are 
reading  the  Greek  Testq,ment,  can  tell  him  that  the 
statement  which  he  has  made  is  absolutely  false.  It 
is  not  true,  and  every  body  who  knows  any  thing 
about  the  Greek  language  knows  that  it  is  not  true, 
that  the  "Greek  word  bapti?;o  means  immersion  and 
nothing  else."  And  how  a  man  possessed  of  com- 
mon sense  and  honesty  could  hazard  such  a  declara- 
tion, in  the  midst  of  an  intelligent  community,  is  to 
me  passing  strange.  The  Lectures  freely  admit  that 
the  word  in  question  signifies  to  immerse,  and  that 
in  classic  Greek  this  may  be  regarded  as  its  primary 
and  predominant  meaning.  But  at  the  same  time  it 
is  well  known  that  this  is  not  its  only  meaning. 
Every  good  Lexicon  gives  the  word  other  meanings, 
and  represents  ivashing  as  one  of  the  significations 
of  the  word.  The  question  then  is,  In  what  sense 
is  the  word  employed  in  the  New  Testament?  And 
more  particularly,  what  is  its  import  in  reference  to 
the  ordinance  of  christian  baj)tism?  In  the  New 
Testament,  the  word  is  employed  with  reference  to 
an  institution  with  which  the  ancient  classical  au- 
thors were  unacquainted.  And,  therefore,  it  would 
not  be  strange  to  find,  that  as  the  word  is  applied  to 
a  new  subject  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  it  is  taken  in 
a  sense  somewhat  different  from  that  which  accords 


1U4 

with  prevailing  usage  in  pagan  authors.  It  is  so 
with  other  words,  and  why  not  w  ith  this?  Take,  for 
example,  the  word  whi(:h  in  the  New  Testament  is 
translated  church.  In  no  classic  author  of  pagan 
antiquity,  is  the  word  church  employed  in  the  sense 
in  which  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament.  Accord- 
ing to  classical  usage,  this  term  signifies  generally 
an  assembly  of  men  called  together.  But  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  is  used  to  signify  all  those  scat- 
tered throughout  the  whole  world,  who  have  been 
called  to  the  knowledge  and  the  profession  of  the 
faith  of  Christianity.  U^  then,  it  is  so  in  relation  to 
other  words,  that  they  are  used  in  a  peculiar  sense 
in  Scripture,  there  is  nothing  unreasonable  in  the 
supposition,  that  the  prevailing  acceptation  of  the 
term  baptizo,  in  the  New  Testament,  may  differ 
somewhat  from  prevailing  classical  usage.  One  of 
the  significations  given  of  the  word  by  all  good 
Lexicographers  is,  to  wash.  And  this  we  maintain, 
is  the  true  import  of  the  term  as  used  with  reference 
to  the  ordinance  of  christian  baptism.  In  its  appli- 
cation  to  this  institution,  it  is  not  en^ployed  in  tiie 
sense  either  of  sprinkling  or  of  immersion,  but  of 
washing.  This  sacred  rite,  as  we  have  already  ob- 
served, is  significant  of  spiritual  washing  or  cleans- 
ing from  sin.  And  the  word  as  used  with  reference 
to  baptism,  is  not  intended  to  designate  the  manner 
in  which  the  water  is  to  be  applied,  but  the  design 
of  the  application,  which  is  washing. 

The  reader  would  suppose  from  the  general  tenor 
of  Mr.  Williams'  remarks,  that  we  maintain  that  the 
word  baptize  means  to  sprinkle,  and  that  baptism 
signifies  sprinkling.  For  example,  he  says  of  us, 
page, 52,  "they  use  a  term,  whose  radical  idea  is 
inimor--;inn,  ncording;  to  their  own  admission,  to  ex- 


105 

press  that  of  sprinkling."  If  the  reader  will  refer 
to  the  Lectures,  he  will  see  that  there  is  no  founda- 
tion whatever  for  such  a  representation.  Such  a 
silly  thought,  as  that  sprinkling  is  baptism  never  en- 
tered our  minds.  And  we  are  just  as  far  from 
thinking  that  immersion  is  baptism.  Sprinkling  is 
scattering  water  upon  a  person  in  small  drops.  Im- 
mersion, is  plunging  a  person  into  water.  But  both 
of  these  may  be  done,  where  there  is  no  baptism. 
Baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  in  which  a 
person  is  washed  with  water,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  A  question  then 
arises,  How  is  the  water  to  be  employed  in  baptism? 
How  is  the  person  to  be  baptized  with  water?  I  an- 
swer, that  one  very  common  mode  of  washing  in 
Scripture,  is  that  of  sprinkling  the  cleansing  element 
upon  the  person  washed.  "And  the  Lord  spake 
unto  Moses,  saying,  take  the  Levites  from  among 
the  children  of  Israel  and  cleanse  them.  And  thus 
shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse  them:  sprinkle 
water  of  purifying  vpon  them.^^*  As  then,  baptism 
itself  is  significant  of  spiritual  cleansing;  and  as  a 
Scriptural  mode  of  cleansing  is,  by  sprinkling  the 
cleansing  element  upon  the  person  purified,  the  con- 
clusion is  irresistible,  that  baptism  is  scripturally  ad- 
ministered by  sprinkling.  But  we  do  not  say  that 
the  word  baptize  signifies  in  this  ordinance,  to  sprin- 
kle. Nor  do  we  say  that  it  signifies  to  immerse. 
Its  signification  is  unspeakably  more  important  than 
either.  It  signifies  to  wash,  and  emblematically  de- 
notes, cleansing  from  sin. 

The  grand  argument  in  support  of  the  claims  of 
immersion,  is,  that  "baptize  means  immersion  and 

*  Numbers  8  :5— 7. 


106 

nothing  else."  If  this  position  cannot  be  maintain- 
ed, the  whole  fabric  falls  to  the  ground.  The  ques- 
tion is  not,  Does  the  word  sometimes  signify  to  im- 
merse? Nor  yet  is  the  question,  Does  the  word 
more  commonly  in  classic  authors  convey  the  idea 
of  immersion?  All  this  may  be  granted,  and  still 
the  point  in  dispute  remains  unsettled.  If  the  word 
is  often  used  in  other  acceptations;  if,  according  to 
the  best  ancient  Lexicographers,  Hesychius,  Sca- 
pula, Suidas,  as  well  as  the  more  modern  authors,  it 
signifies  to  wash,  to  cleanse,  then  the  question  re- 
mains to  be  decided.  In  which  of  these  senses  is  the 
word  employed  with  reference  to  baptism?  And  this 
is  a  question,  let  it  be  particularly  observed,  which 
classic  authors,  who  were  unacquainted  with  the  sa- 
cred Scriptures,  are  not  competent  to  answer.  The 
correct  answer  to  this  question  must  be  learned  from 
the  meaning  and  design  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
and  the  import  of  the  word  according  to  Scriptural 
usage.  What,  then,  is  the  design  of  the  ordinance? 
Is  it  to  signify  the  plunging  of  a  person  into  water;  or 
the  sprinkling  of  water  upon  a  person?  The  suppo- 
sition is  ridiculous!  It  is  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other.  The  ordinance  is  significant  of  washing,  of 
cleansing  from  sin.  And  the  word  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  convey  the  idea  of  washing. 
And  as  this  is  one  of  the  true  and  proper  significa- 
tions of  the  v/ord,  and  as  it  is  the  only  signification 
of  the  word,  which  strictly  corresponds  with  the  de- 
sign of  the  ordinance,  we  rest  in  the  conclusion,  that 
the  proper  import  of  the  word,  in  reference  to  chris- 
tian baptism,  is  to  wash.  Baptism,  then,  is  not  an 
immersion,  nor  is  it  a  sprinkling,  but  it  is  a  washing 
with' water.  And  though  we  admit  that  this  washing 
may  be  performed  in  difl^erent  ways,  yet  the  mode 


107        ^ 

by  sprinkling  is  at  once  Scriptural  and  expressive  of 
the  design  of  the  institution.  And  hence  we  feel 
emboldened  to  say,  that  the  very  foundation  on 
which  the  exclusive  claims  of  immersion  rest,  is  per- 
fectly rotten. 

For  the  purpose  of  satisfying  the  plain  christian, 
who  bows  to  the  authority  of  God's  word,  the  Lec- 
tures observe  the  following  order: 

1.  Examples  are  adduced  to  show  that  the  Scrip- 
tures employ  the  word  baptize,  where  the  idea  of 
immersion  is  utterly  excluded.  And  hence  the  un- 
lettered christian  can  see  that  it  is  not  true,  that  the 
word  signifies  "immersion  and  nothing  else." 

2.  Passages  of  Scripture  are  cited  to  prove  that  the 
word  baptize  is  used  to  convey  the  idea  of  washing. 

3.  Examples  of  the  administration  of  baptism  are 
examined,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  cir- 
cumstances, in  no  instance,  require  us  to  suppose 
that  the  rite  was  performed  by  immersion;  while  in 
some  cases  the  attendant  circumstances  are  incon- 
sistent with  such  a  supposition. 

In  our  next  chapter,  we  propose  to  examine  what 
Mr.  Williams  has  to  say  to  these  things. 


CHAPTER   IX. 


EXAMPLES  IN  WHICH  THE  WORD  BAPTIZE  DOES  NOT 
CONVEY  THE  IDEA  OF  I3IMERSI0N.  EXAMPLES 
IN  WHICH  IT  IS  USED  IN  THE  SENSE  OF  WASHING. 

In  pleading  the  cause  of  immersion,  Mr.  Williams 
assumes  the  position,  that  the  word  baptizo,  employ- 
ed by  our  Lord  in  the  institution  of  Baptism,  signi- 
fies to  immerse  and  ^^nothing  else.''''  U  the  point 
assumed  were  true,  the  conclusion  would  be  obvious 
that  baptism  should  be  administered  by  immersion. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  assumption  is  false, 
then  it  is  just  as  clear  that  the  conclusion  is  invalid. 

That  the  assumption  of  Mr.  Williams  is  utterly 
without  foundation,  the  Lectures  show, — 

1.  From  examples  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  the  word  baptize  does  not  convey  the  idea  of 
immersion,  and  in  which  the  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage utterly  excludes  the  sense  of  immersion.  The 
first  example  to  which  reference  is  made,  is  the  fol- 
lowing: "John  truly  baptized  with  water;  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many 
days  hence."*  Our  Lord  here  assured  his  disci- 
ples that  they  should  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  in  the  following  chapter,  we  have  the 
history   of  the   fulfilment  of  that  promise.     Now 

*Acts  1:5. 
10 


110 

what  is  the  language  which  the  Scriptures  employ 
in  relation  to  the  communication  of  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit?  Do  they  in  any  instance  em- 
ploy terms  expressive  of  the  idea  of  immersion? — 
Never !  The  terms  sprinkling  and  pouring,  are 
those  which  are  usually  employed.  "I  will  pour 
water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty;  and  floods  upon  the 
dry  ground:  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed, 
and  my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring."*  "Then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall 
be  clean;  from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your 
idols  will  I  cleanse  you.""("  Such  is  the  language 
which  the  sacred  Oracles  employ  when  they  speak 
of  the  communication  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  And  in  relation  to  this  very  baptism  of 
which  the  apostles  were  made  partakers,  the  same 
language  is  used.  In  accounting  for  the  remark- 
able occurrence,  which  excited  the  amazement  of  the 
multitude,  the  apostle  Peter  declares,  "This  is  that 
which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel,  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour 
out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh."J  The  plain  honest 
christian  will  ask  himself  the  question.  How  were 
the  apostles  baptized  with  the  Spirit?  And  in  search- 
ing for  the  correct  answer,  it  is  not  necessary  to  take 
"one  peep  into  the  Greek  language;"  nor  yet,  that 
he  should  place  himself  at  the  feet  of  some  scholar 
like  the  Pastor  of  the  First  baptized  church  of  Pitts- 
burgh, to  have  the  difficulty  solved.  All  that  is  re- 
quisite, is,  that  he  open  his  Bible  and  read  the  plain 
intelligible  words, — "I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit 
upon  all  flesh."  It  is  then  just  as  palpably  evident 
as  plain  words  can  make  it,  that  here  is  a  baptism 

*  Isaiah  44  :  3.       t  Ezek.  33 :  25.       t  Acts  2  :  16,  17. 


Ill 

in  which  there  was  no  immersion  nor  any  thing  like 
it.  And  the  humble  christian,  who  bows  to  the  au- 
thority of  God's  word,  rather  than  to  the  dogmatical 
assertions  of  men,  can  have  no  difficulty  in  deciding 
that  as  the  apostles  were  baptized,  when  the  Spirit 
was  poured  out  on  them,  so  they  are  baptized  in  a 
Scriptural  manner,  on  whom  the  water  of  baptism  is 
poured. 

To  evade  the  force  of  this  conclusion,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams would  have  the  reader  to  believe,  that  the 
house  in  which  the  apostles  were  assembled,  was 
completely  filled  with  the  Spirit!  and  therefore,  after 
all,  it  might  be  said  that  they  were  in  a  manner  im- 
mersed in  the  Spirit!  The  Holy  Spirit,  as  a  divine 
being,  is  present  every  where  throughout  the  uni- 
verse. His  presence  fills  immensity.  But  it  is  of 
the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  communicated  to  the 
apostles,  that  the  Scriptures  here  speak.  And  to  re- 
present a  house  as  being  filled  with  the  quickening, 
illuminating,  or  purifying  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  is  monstrous!  But  the  sacred  history  speaks 
of  no  such  thing.  It  is  entirely  a  fiction  of  Mr. 
Williams'  brain.  What  was  it  that,  according  to 
the  history,  filled  the  house  where  the  apostles  were 
sitting?  Let  the  reader  open  his  Bible  and  answer 
the  question  for  himself.  "And  suddenly  there  came 
a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind, 
and  it  filled  all  the  house."  The  reader  will  per- 
ceive that  it  was  '■'-the  sounds  as  of  a  rushing  mighty 
wind,"  which  filled  the  house. 

According  to  the  history  of  this  memorable  event, 
there  were  two  external  accompaniments  of  this  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  conferred  upon  the  apostles. 

1.  There  was  "a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rush- 
ing mighty  wind,"  which  sound  filled  the  house. 


112 

2.  There  "appeared  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire, 
and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them."  Both  wind  and  fire  are 
employed  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  emblems  of  the 
quickening,  enlightening  and  purifying  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.*  In  connection  with  these  external 
manifestations  of  the  gracious  presence  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  the  apostles  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost; 
they  were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost;  the  Spirit 
was  poured  out  on  them.  The  apostles  then  were 
baptized  with  the  Spirit,  when  the  influences  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  were  poured  out  on  them. 

Mr.  Williams  in  the  next  place  remarks:  "It 
ought  to  be  remembered  here  that  the  Greek  parti- 
cle, 671,  rendered  'with,'  in  our  version,  is  rendered 
in  several  of  the  first  English  versions  by  the  word 
'zTi.'  "  Every  Greek  scholar  knows  that  the  prepo- 
sition in  question,  may  be  rendered  in  or  with,  ac- 
cording as  the  sense  of  the  passage  may  require. 
But  is  it  so,  that  "several  of  the  first  English  ver- 
sions" have  adopted  the  translation  "in,"  in  the  pas- 
sage under  consideration?  Had  the  author  of  the 
"Reply,"  condescended  to  name  the  particular  ver- 
sions, we  should  then  have  been  able  to  show  the 
reader  the  little  value  of  this  general  remark,  and 
how  unsafe  it  is  to  depend  upon  his  statements.  I 
have  now  before  me  the  different  English  versions, 
which  were  executed  previous  to  the  publication  of 
our  authorized  version;  that  of  Wicklif,  Tyndale, 
Cranmer  and  Geneva.  In  each  of  these  versions, 
that  of  Wicklif  excepted,  the  translation  is  the  same 
as  in  our  version:  "John  baptized  with  water."  In 
Wicklif's  version,  the  translation  is,  "John  baptized 
in  water."     But  the  less  importance  is  to  be  attach- 

*Matt.  3:11.     John  3:8. 


113  * 

ed  to  VVicklif's  translation,  in  a  critical  point  of 
view,  since  he  formed  his  translation,  not  on  the  ba- 
sis of  the  original  Greek,  with  which  he  was  not 
sufficiently  acquainted,  but  on  that  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate. 

In  the  parallel  passage,  iMatt.  3:11,  to  which  Mr. 
Williams  refers,  the  translation  in  VVicklif's  version 
is,  "1  wash  you  in  water;  he  shall  baptize  you  in  the 
Holy  (ihost."  The  translation  of  Tyndale's  and 
Cranmer's  version  is,  "I  baptize  you  in  water;  he 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost:"  the  Geneva 
version  corresponds  with  our  own:  but  none  of  these 
versions  adopt  the  monstrous  translation,  He  shall 
immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Indeed,  it  is  strange 
that  pious  ears  can  be  reconciled  to  an  idea  so  in- 
consistent with  proper  and  reverential  views  of  the 
ever  blessed  Spirit. 

Mr.  Williams'  reference  to  the  early  versions,  is 
as  unfortunate  for  his  cause,  as  his  other  references 
generally.  Instead  of  helping  him  out  of  a  diffi- 
culty, they  only  sink  him  deeper  in  the  mire.  The 
phrase  under  consideration  occurs  in  four  different 
places.  Matt.  3:11,  Mark  1:8,  Luke  3:16,  and 
Acts  1:5.  Wicklif's  version,  which  the  reader  will 
remember,  is  a  translation  of  the  Latin  Vulgate, 
and  not  of  the  original  Greek,  is  the  only  version 
which  uniformly  adopts  the  translation  in.  In  Mat- 
thew, Tyndale's  version  adopts  the  translation  in,  in 
the  first  clause,  and  with  in  the  last.  But  in  Mark, 
and  Luke,  and  the  Acts,  his  translation  corresponds 
with  our  authorized  version.  The  version  of  Cran- 
mer  is  the  same  with  that  of  Tyndale;  and  the  ver- 
sion of  Geneva  in  all  respects  corresponds  with  our 
own.  If,  then,  the  question  is  to  be  decided  by  the 
10* 


114 

early  English  versions,  the  reader  will  perceive  that 
Mr.  Williams  is  found  in  the  minority. 

In  deciding  upon  the  relative  merits  of  any  trans- 
lation, our  appeal  must  of  course  be  to  the  original. 
What  then  is  the  correct  translation  of  the  passage 
in  question?  It  is  admitted  that  the  Greek  preposi- 
tion e/i,  may  be  translated  either  in  or  with,  as  the 
sense  of  the  passage  may  require.  As  one  exani- 
ple  out  of  many  to  which  I  might  refer,  the  scholar 
may  turn  to  Rev.  6:8.  "And  power  was  given  unto 
them  over  the  fourth  part  of  the  earth,  to  kill  with 
the  sword,  and  with  hunger,  and  with  deatli."  Here 
it  will  be  perceived  that  in  three  successive  instances, 
the  preposition  in  question  is  translated  loith,  as  de- 
noting the  instrument  by  which  a  thing  is  done.  It 
is  certain  then;  that  the  word  before  us  may  with 
propriety  be  rendered,  as  it  is  in  our  version,  '^John 
truly  baptized  with  water."  And  that  this  is  the 
correct  translation,  appears  with  sufficient  evidence 
from  the  fact,  that  the  same  word  in  the  latter 
clause,  is  correctly  rendered  with.  "Ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  I  say  correctly 
rendered  "with;"  for  any  other  translation  would 
not  only  be  revolting  to  our  views  of  propriety,  but 
at  variance  with  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  The 
Spirit  was  poured  out  upon  the  apostles.  And,  there- 
fore, it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  they  on  whom 
the  Spirit  was  poured  out,  were  baptized  in  the 
Spirit.  Since,  then,  we  can  have  no  doubt  as  to  the 
correctness  of  the  translation  in  the  latter  clause  of 
the  verse,  the  principles  of  exegesis  demand  that  we 
should  adopt  the  same  translation  in  the  connected 
clause,  unless  the  sense  evidently  requires  a  depart- 
ure from  it. 


115 

The  position  of  the  Lectures,  then,  remains  un- 
shaken. We  have  here  a  plain  example,  of  which 
the  unlettered  christian  may  judge  as  well  as  the 
scholar,  in  which  the  word  baptize  does  not  convey 
the  sense  of  immersion,  nor  any  thing  like  it.  The 
apostles  received  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  when  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out  upon  them. 

Another  example  equally  conclusive  is  furnished 
in  1  Cor.  10:2.  "And  were  all  baptized  unto  Mo- 
ses in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  If  the  reader  will 
turn  to  the  history  of  Israel's  passage  through  the 
Red  Sea,  Ex.  14:29,  he  will  have  plain  and  convin- 
cing evidence,  that  the  Israelites  were  not  immersed 
in  the  sea.  And  yet  the  apostle  expressly  declares, 
that  they  were  baptized  in  the  sea.  Consequently, 
any  person  who  can  couple  two  simple  propositions 
together,  and  draw  the  legitimate  and  plain  conclu- 
sion from  them,  can  see  that  in  this  case  of  baptism 
there  was  no  immersion.  The  history  informs  us, 
that  "the  children  of  Israel  v/alked  upon  dry  land 
in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  and  the  waters  were  a  wall 
unto  them  on  their  right  hand  and  on  their  left."  It 
appears  then,  that  the  Israelites  were  baptized  in  the 
sea.  But  they  were  not  immersed;  for,  'Uhey  walk- 
ed on  dry  land  in  the  midst  of  the  sea."  Therefore, 
in  this  instance,  the  word  baptize  does  not  signify  to 
immerse;  which  was  the  point  to  be  proved. 

To  obviate  this  conclusion,  Mr.  Williams  re- 
marks: "The  sea  stood  in  walls  on  either  side,  and 
the  cloud  was  over  them,  between  them  and  the 
Egyptians,  so  that  they  were  buried  from  the  sight 
of  their  enemies,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Thus 
by  the  help  of  the  imagination,  Mr.  Williams  con- 
trives to  get  the  Israelites  into  such  a  situation,  that 
by  means  of  the  cloud  and  the  sea  together,  they  are 


116 

buried  out  of  sight.  The  reader  will  however  ob- 
serve, that  the  apostle  says  nothing  about  the  Israel- 
ites being  buried  out  of  sight.  He  says  that  they 
were  baptized  in  the  sea.  And  unless  we  should 
take  leave  of  our  senses,  and  bring  ourselves  to  be- 
lieve that  a  person  may  be  plunged  into  the  sea, 
while  he  walks  on  dry  land  through  the  midst  of  it, 
we  are  sure  that  in  this  case  there  was  a  baptism, 
where  there  was  no  immersion. 

2.  Having  proved  by  examples  that  the  word 
baptize  is  employed  in  the  New  Testament,  where 
it  does  not  convey  the  idea  of  immersion,  the  Lec- 
tures in  the  next  place  adduce  instances  in  which 
the  term  is  used  to  signify  washings  without  par- 
ticular reference  to  the  mode  in  which  the  cleans- 
ing element  is  applied.  The  following  portions  of 
Scripture  afford  pertinent  examples:  "The  Pharisee 
marvelled  that  Jesus  had  not  first  washed  before  din- 
ner."* "For  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tra- 
dition of  the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the 
market,  except  they  wash  (baptize)  they  eat  not. 
And  many  other  things  there  be  which  they  have  re- 
ceived to  hold,  as  the  washmg  (baptism)  of  cups  and 
pots,  and  brazen  vessels,  and  tables. "f  The  reader 
will  please  to  bear  in  mind,  that  my  specific  object 
in  adducing  these  examples,  is  to  prove  from  the  sa- 
cred Scriptures,  that  the  words  translated  baptism 
and  baptize,  are  employed  to  convey  the  idea  of 
washing  or  cleansing.  In  these  instances,  the  words 
in  question  are  not  used  to  point  out  any  particular 
mode  of  applying  water  to  the  person  or  thing  to 
be  cleansed,  but  to  designate  the   design  and  the 

*Luke  11  :38.  tMark  7:3,  4. 


117 

effect  of  the  application  of  water,  which  is  cleansing. 
And  hence,  in  so  far  as  the  argument  is  concerned,  it 
is  perfectly  immaterial  in  what  manner  the  washing 
referred  to  by  the  Pharisee  was  effected.  If  it  could 
be  made  appear  (which  it  cannot)  that  there  was  or- 
dinarily an  immersion  of  the  person,  in  the  washing 
to  which  the  Pharisee  refers,  this  would  in  no  degree 
weaken  the  force  of  the  argument.  For  the  design 
of  the  speaker  is  not  to  convey  the  idea  of  immersion, 
but  of  cleansing.  The  cause  of  the  Pharisee's  sur- 
prise, was  not  that  he  had  not  first  immersed  him- 
self before  dinner,  but  that  he  had  not  washed. 
And  in  relation  to  the  usages  referred  to  by  the 
Evangelist  Mark,  "the  washing  (baptism)  of  cups 
and  pots  and  brazen  vessels,"  the  same  remark  will 
apply.  It  is  perhaps  impossible  to  determine  in 
every  case,  in  what  particular  way  these  utensils 
were  washed;  whether  they  were  dipped  in  water, 
or  whether  water  was  sprinkled  on  them.  But  it  is 
perfectly  immaterial  in  what  particular  way  the  wa- 
ter was  used.  The  word  baptism  in  this  case,  sig- 
nifies neither  immersion  nor  sprinkling,  but  washing. 
The  design  of  the  word  is  not  to  indicate  the  mode 
of  applying  the  cleansing  element,  but  the  effect  of 
its  application,  which  is  cleansing. 

Since  then  it  is  undeniable,  that  the  words  bap- 
tism and  baptize,  are  employed  in  Scripture  tor  con- 
vey the  idea  of  washing,  without  reference  to  the  par- 
ticular mode  of  applying  the  water  to  the  person  or 
thing  to  be  washed;  therefore,  the  particular  mode 
of  applying  the  water  to  the  person  baptized,  is  not 
essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance.  But  one 
very  common  mode  of  washing  referred  to  in  Scrip- 
ture, is  that  of  sprinkling  the  cleansing  element  upon 
the  person  or  thing  to  be  cleansed.     Therefore,  the 


118 

sprinkling  of  water  on  the  person  baptized,  is  a  scrip- 
tural mode  of  administering  tiie  ordinance. 

Our  conclusion  is  further  strengthened,  by  an  ex- 
ample taken  from  the  apostolic  description  of  the 
rites  and  ceremonies  connected  with  the  service  of 
the  first  tabernacle:  "Which  stood  only  in  meats 
and  drinks  and  divers  washings  [baptisms)  and  car- 
nal ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until  the  time  of  re- 
formation."* The  reader  is  desired  to  notice  that 
the  apostle,  when  speaking  of  the  riles  of  purifica- 
tion observed  under  the  legal  dispensation,  terms 
them  generally,  "divers  baptisms."  It  is  quite  ma- 
nifest that  the  design  of  the  apostle  is  not  to  indicate 
the  particular  mode,  after  which  these  rites  of  puri- 
fication were  performed,  but  the  end  and  the  effect 
of  these  rites,  which  was,  washing  or  cleansing.  It 
is,  however,  equally  manifest,  that  some  of  the  rites 
at  least,  to  which  the  apostle  refers,  were  performed 
by  sprinkling.  And  hence  the  language  which  he 
employs  in  a  following  verse:  "For  if  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  5/>nnAr- 
ling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the 
flesh."  The  apostle  here  refers  to  the  prescribed 
mode  of  cleansing  persons  or  things  which  were 
ceremonially  unclean,  by  "the  water  of  separation."! 
The  mode  of  application  was  by  "sprinkling."  "The 
blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer 
sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purification 
of  the  flesh."  This  is  one  of  the  "divers  baptisms," 
of  which  the  apostle  speaks.  And  hence  the  conclu- 
sion is  irresistible,  that  the  person  is  baptized  in  a 
scriptural  manner,  on  whom  the  water  of  baptism  is 
sprinkled. 

*  Heb.  9  :  10.  t  Numbers  19  : 1—22. 


119 

We  have  then,  it  is  hoped,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  reader,  proved — 

1.  That  the  word  baptize,  is  used  in  scripture, 
where  it  does  not  convey  the  idea  of  immersion,  and 
where  such  a  meaning  of  the  word  is  ahogether  in- 
admissible. Hence,  when  Mr.  Williams  says  that 
the  word  baptize,  means  to  immerse,  and  nothing 
else,  he  assumes  a  position  which  is  irreconcilable 
with  scripture. 

2.  That  the  words  baptize  and  baptism,  are  em- 
ployed to  convey  the  idea  of  washing,  without  refe- 
rence to  the  manner  in  which  the  cleansing  element 
is  applied.  Christian  baptism  is  significant  of  spirit* 
ual  washing.  Baptism,  therefore,  as  a  christian  or- 
dinance, signifies  neither  immersion  nor  sprinkling, 
but  washing.  It  indicates  not  the  manner  in  which 
water  is  to  be  apphed  to  the  body,  but  the  design 
and  the  effect  of  its  application,  which  is  cleansing. 

On  page  fifty-nine  of  the  "Reply,"  Mr.  Williams 
gives  us  a  display  of  his  learning,  by  presenting 
what  he  styles  an  '■^Etymological  View  of  the  tvord 
Baptizo:' 

Under  this  head  he  makes  the  following  most  ex- 
travagant remark:  "  It  is  only  necessary  on  this 
point,  for  me  to  say,  that  universally,  both  in  classic 
and  sacred  authors,  the  word  baptizo^  is  rendered 
immerse;  or  construed  in  accordance  with  that  de- 
finition." In  reply  to  this  bold  assertion,  all  that  is 
necessary,  is  simply  to  refer  the  reader  to  the  plain 
scripture  examples  which  have  just  been  cited.  Any 
one  who  can  read  his  Bible,  can  see  that  such  a  de- 
claration, when  weighed  in  the  balances  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, is  found  to  be  "lighter  than  vanity." 

But  to  make  extravagance  more  extravagant,  Mr. 
Williams  adds, — "Pedobaplist  authors  shall  furnish 


120 

the  proof;"  that  is,  proof  that  the  word  baptizo,  is 
"universally  rendered  immerse."  It  is  really  an  un- 
pleasant task  to  have  to  expose  the  utter  disregard 
for  truth  which  such  unqualified  and  unfounded  de- 
clarations evince.  It  is  wholly  unnecessary  for  me 
to  inform  any  scholar  that  it  is  not  true,  that  "uni- 
versally both  in  classic  and  sacred  authors,  the  word 
haptizo  is  rendered  immerse.  Every  school-boy  that 
has  read  the  Greek  testament,  can  refer  to  examples 
which  cover  with  shame  such  unguarded  declara- 
tions. The  reader  will  observe,  that  the  question  is 
not,  whether  the  word  haptizo  is  sometimes  very  pro- 
perly rendered  immerse,  but,  is  it  so  rendered  univer- 
sally? Does  it  mean  nothing  else?  In  reply  to  such 
interrogations,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 
Mr.  Williams  is  not  sustained  by  the  authority  of 
one  solitary  lexicographer  of  any  reputation.  And 
it  is  a  very  easy  matter  to  show,  that  he  is  condemn- 
ed by  the  authorities  he  has  so  pompously  paraded. 
It  would  exhaust  the  patience  of  the  reader,  and 
it  would  be  a  useless  labor,  were  I  to  examine  all  the 
authorities  cited  in  the  "Reply."  A  few  of  them 
shall  be  noticed  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  the 
reader  how  unsafe  it  is  to  rely  on  the  statements  of 
Mr.  Williams. 

He  observes:  "From  the  numerous  lexicographers, 
I  shall  only  refer  to  Robinson's  Lexicon,  which  is 
the  standard  work  in  sacred  interpretation;  and  Done- 
gan's  Lexicon,  the  standard  work  in  classic  study." 
I  think  it  will  be  news  in  the  literary  world,  to  hear 
that  those  two  Lexicons  are  the  standards  for  the 
interpretation  of  the  Greek  language!  But  let  us 
hear  what  the  standards  have  to  say.  In  the  Greek 
and- English  Lexicon  of  Robinson,  Boston  edition  of 
1836,  under  the  word  Baptifeo,  he  gives  first  as  the 


121 

classical  sense,  the  definition,  "to  immerse,  to  sink." 
Then  with  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the 
New  Testament,  with  which  only,  we  are  concerned, 
he  gives  as  the  first  sense,  "To  wash,  to  cleanse  by 
washing."  So  much  for  Mr.  Williams'  first  stand- 
ard author,  to  prove  that  baptizo  is  "universally  ren- 
dered immerse.'''' 

Let  us  in  the  next  place,  hear  the  testimony  of 
Donegan,  Mr.  Williams'  "standard  work  in  classic 
study."  Bapto,  the  theme  from  which  baptizo  is 
derived,  he  defines,  "to  dip,"  "^o  tvash"  "to  dye." 
Baptizo,  he  defines,  "to  immerse,"  "to  saturate," 
to  drench  with  vnne.''^  Now  I  suppose  Mr.  Williams 
himself  will  admit,  that  the  lovers  of  wine,  with  all 
their  fondness  for  the  good  creature,  would  not 
choose  to  immerse  themselves  in  it,  but  would  much 
rather  pour  it  literally  down  their  throats.  And  yet 
Donegan,  his  standard  authority,  says  that  baptizo 
means,  "to  drench  with  wine."  »So  much  for  Mr. 
Williams'  authorities  to  prove  that  baptizo  means, 
"to  immerse  and  nothing  else." 

I  would  here  remark,  that  Donegan  is  not  consist- 
ent with  himself,  in  leaving  out  "to  wash,"  among 
the  significations  of  baptizo,  when  he  gives  it  as  one 
of  the  meanings  of  the  root  bapto.  Scapula,  Hede- 
ricus,  Schrevelius  and  Groves,  any  one  of  whom  is 
as  good  authority  as  Donegan,  all  concur  in  giving 
"to  wash,"  as  one  of  the  significations  of  baptizo. 

After  a  particular  reference  to  his  two  "standard 
Lexicons,"  both  of  which  testify  against  him,  Mr. 
Williams  proceeds  to  "bring  forward  a  few  out  of 
hundreds  of  Pedobaptists,  who  contradict  their  own 
practices."  The  reader  will  observe,  that  the  Pastor 
of  the  First  Baptized  Church  of  Pittsburgh  is  very 
familiar  with  books.  At  one  time  he  could  quote 
11 


122 

'scores'  of  Pedobaptists,  and  then  again  'hundreds;' 
and  what  is  better,  all  on  his  side  of  the  question! 
However,  if  the  reader  would  submit  to  the  trouble 
of  examining  his  references,  he  would  discover  that 
if  Mr.  Williams  has  ever  read  the  one-half  of  the 
authors  to  whom  he  refers,  he  would  need  to  read 
them  over  again  before  he  undertakes  to  say  much 
about  them.  The  first  of  the  "hundreds,"  whom  he 
could  bring  forward  to  testify  in  his  favor,  and  to 
prove  that  baptizo  '■'universally''''  signifies  to  immerse, 
is  John  Calvin;  and  we  are  referred  to  Calvin's  "In- 
stitutes, lib.  5,  chap.  15, 'sect.  2."  Now  it  so  hap- 
pens, that  there  are  on\y  four  books  in  Calvin's  In- 
stitutes; and  yet  Mr.  Williams  has  an  extract  from 
the  ffih  book,  which  Calvin  never  wrote!  Such  a 
writer  need  have  no  difficulty  in  proving  any  thing 
which  he  chooses  to  establish.  We  have  seen  on  a 
former  occasion,  when  his  object  was  to  invalidate 
the  testimony  of  Augustine,  he  called  to  his  aid,  the 
acts  of  the  council  of  Melo  in  Numedia;  a  council 
of  which  nobody  ever  heard  before!  And  now  to 
make  it  appear  that  the  renowned  Calvin  sustains 
him  in  the  extravagant  assertion  that  Baptizo  means 
immersion  and  nothing  else,  a  book  is  ascribed  to 
this  distinguished  author  which  he  never  wrote! 
Calvin  admits,  with  all  authors  of  any  note,  that 
baptizo  means  to  immerse;  but  neither  he  nor  any 
other  author  of  established  reputation,  maintains, 
that  the  word  in  question,  means  to  "immerse  and 
nothing  else."  Calvin  does  indeed  admit  that  bap- 
tizo means  to  immerse;  and  he  further  admits  that 
immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church. 
But  he  expressly  says,  "Whether  the  person  who  is 
baptized  be  wholly  immersed,  and  whether  thrice  or 
once;  or  whether  water  be  only  poured  or  sprinkled 


123 

upon  him,  is  of  no  importance."  Institutes,  lib.  4, 
chap.  15,  sect.  19.  I  suppose  the  reader  will  admit, 
that  when  Calvin  is  permitted  to  speak  for  himself, 
he  is  very  far  from  sustaining  the  dogmatical  asser- 
tion of  Mr.  VVilliams,  that  baptizo  means,  to  "im- 
merse and   nothing  else." 

Another  authority  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Wil- 
liams, is  Bretschneider.  In  relation  to  this  German 
Neologist,  he  observes:  "This  writer  is  confessedly 
the  most  critical  lexicographer  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment." What?  The  most  critical  lexicographer? 
Why,  sir,  you  told  us  a  little  before,  that  "Robinson's 
Lexicon  is  the  standard  work  in  sacred  interpreta- 
tion." And  now  in  the  vast  extent  of  your  reading, 
you  have  brought  forward  another  author,  who  is 
confessedly  a  more  critical  Lexicographer  than  the 
standard  work  itself! 

The  reader  is  desired  to  attend  to  another  profound 
remark  of  our  author  in  relation  to  his  authorities. 
"Indeed,"  says  he,  "the  three  New  Testament  lexi- 
cographers, Schleusner,  Wahl,  and  Bretschneider, 
limit  baptism  as  a  sacred  ordinance,  to  immersion." 
"TAe  three  New  Testament  lexicographers!"  Then 
it  appears  there  are  three  only,  that  deserve  to  be 
mentioned.  And  yet,  strange  to  tell,  Robinson's  lex- 
icon, the  "standard  work,"  is  not  among  the  num- 
ber! My  dear  sir! — did  you  not  begin  to  write  be- 
fore you  were  ready? 

The  reader's  indulgence  is  craved  while  I  examine 
one  of  these  authorities,  as  a  specimen  of  those 
which  are  spread  out  in  hostile  array  upon  the  pages 
of  the  "Reply."  Schleusner,  is  one  of  "the  hun- 
dreds" whom  Mr.  Williams  could  bring  forward  to 
establish  his  position,  that  the  word  baptizo  means  to 
"immerse  and  nothing  else."  Let  this  distinguished 
Lexicographer,  then,  speak  for  himself. 


124 

In  his  Lexicon,  under  the  word  baptizo,  he  gives 
first,  as  the  classical  sense,  "to  immerse."  And  then 
he  adds,  "It  is  never  used  in  this  sense  in  the  New 
Testament."  And  yet  this  is  one  of  the  "hundreds" 
of  authors  on  whom  Mr.  Williams  relies,  to  prove 
that  the  word  baptizo,  is  "universally  both  in  classic 
and  sacred  authors,  rendered  immerse!"  In  the  next 
place,  Schleusner  gives  as  the  first  sense  of  the  word 
baptizo  in  the  New  Testament,  "to  wash,  to  cleanse." 
And  yet,  Schleusner  is  one  out  of  a  countless  multi- 
tude of  authors  on  v/hom  Mr.  Williams  relies,  to 
prove  that  baptizo  means  "immersion  and  nothing 
else."     O  Shame!  where  is  thy  blush? 


CHAPTER   X. 

EXAMPLES  OF  THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  BAPTISM, 
IN  WHICH  THE  CIRCUMSTANCES  ARE  AGAINST 
THE    CLAIMS    OF    I3IMERSI0N. 

Having  shown  that  the  words  Baptize  and  Bap- 
tism,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  afford  no  sup- 
port to  the  exclusive  claims  of  immersion,  the  Lec- 
tures proceed,  in  the  next  place,  to  examine  some 
particular  examples  of  the  administration  of  this  sa- 
cred rite  by  those  whom  our  Lord  commissioned  to 
preach  the  Gospel.  And  the  conclusion  to  which 
this  examination  leads  us,  is,  that  there  is  no  in- 
stance recorded  in  Scripture,  in  which  the  circum- 
stances mentioned  in  connection  with  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  rite,  require  us  to  suppose  that  the  or- 
dinance was  administered  after  the  manner  of  im- 
mersion; while  there  are  examples  in  which  all  the 
circumstances  are  in  direct  opposition  to  such  a  sup- 
position. 

The  first  instance  of  the  administration  of  baptism 
recorded  in  the  history  of  the  primitive  church,  is 
found  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles: "Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word, 
were  baptized;  and  the  same  day  there  were  added 
to  them  about  three  thousand."  The  reader  who 
desires  to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  is 
requested  to  consider  attentively  the  circumstances 
connected  with  this  case. 
11* 


126 

1.  This  vast  multitude  did  not  assemble  for  the 
purpose  of  receiving  baptism, — and  consequently, 
those  previous  preparations  for  administering  and 
receiving  the  ordinance,  which  are  now  common 
where  the  rite  is  administered  by  immersion,  could 
not  have  been  made.  At  the  present  day,  when  our 
brethren  are  about  to  perform  the  rite  of  immersion, 
they  are  careful  to  select  a  place  where  a  suitable 
supply  of  water  is  at  hand;  and  the  persons  to  be 
immersed  are  provided  with  suitable  apparel.  But 
in  the  case  before  us,  none  of  the  vast  multitude  had 
come  to  the  place  where  they  assembled,  with  any 
jexpectation  of  receiving  baptism.  The  Holy  Spirit 
had  just  been  poured  out  in  a  miraculous  manner 
upon  the  Apostles,  so  that  they  were  immediately 
qualified  to  preach  the  word  in  the  different  lan- 
guages of  the  people  of  every  nation  then  at  Jerusa- 
lem. The  report  of  this  wonderful  fact  being  spread 
throughout  the  city,  "the  multitude  came  together." 
To  the  assembled  multitude  the  apostle  Peter  preach- 
ed the  gospel.  After  giving  us  a  summary  of  his 
discourse,  the  historian  adds, — "And  with  many 
other  words  did  he  testify  and  exhort,  saying,  save 
yourselves  from  this  untoward  generation."  The 
spirit  of  conviction  was  poured  out  upon  them;  and 
in  obedience  to  the  divine  direction,  they  professed 
their  subjection  to  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  by 
the  reception  of  baptism.  Let  it  be  particularly  con- 
sidered, that  this  multitude  had  not  been  previously 
instructed  in  the  principles  of  Christianity,  so  as  to 
assemble  on  this  occasion,  prepared  to  receive  bap- 
tism: and  hence  a  considerable  portion  of  time  must 
have  been  spent  in  communicating  to  them  that  in- 
struction winch  was  necessary  to  enable  them  to 
make  an  intelligent  profession  of  their  faith  in  Christ. 


127 

Now  when  it  is  considered  that  this  multitude  had 
not  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  baptism, 
and  consequently  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been 
prepared  to  receive  it  by  immersion;  and  when  you 
consider  the  time  which  must  have  been  occupied  in 
instructing  them  in  the  knowledge  of  salvation  thro' 
Jesus  Christ,  and  in  the  nature  and  obligations  of 
baptism,  is  it  credible,  that  three  thousand  persons 
could  have  been  immersed  during  the  remaining  por- 
tion of  that  day? 

To  extricate  himself  from  this  difficulty,  Mr.  Wil- 
liams replies  in  the  first  place,  that  "the  historian 
does  not  say  that  they  were  baptized  on  that  day." 
But  does  he  not  say  that  which  necessarily  amounts 
to  the  same  thingi  He  soys  that  those  "who  gladly 
received  the  word,  were  baptized;  and  the  same  day 
there -were  added  to  them  about  three  thousand 
souls."  We  must  then  either  admit  that  the  three 
thousand  were  baptized  on  that  day, — or  otherwise, 
admit  that  some  were  added  to  the  fellowship  of  the 
church,  who  did  not  "receive  the  word." 

Perceiving  himself,  as  it  would  appear,  that  this 
answer  would  not  satisfy  any  person  possessed  of 
common  sense,  another  effort  is  made  to  escape  from 
this  perplexing  difficulty.  "If,"  says  the  "Reply," 
"the  work  were  divided  between  the  seventy  disci- 
ples and  twelve  apostles  of  our  Lord,  there  would 
have  been  less  than  forty  for  each  administrator." 
"7f  the  work  were  divided!"  Ahl  but  there  lies  the 
difficulty.  "J/*/"  If  we  should  grant  every  thing 
which  you  find  it  necessary  to  suppose,  you  could 
then  establish  the  claims  of  immersion  very  conve- 
niently. With  regard  to  the  seventy  disciples,  so  far 
as  appears  from  the  sacred  history,  their  commission 
was   temporary.     There  is  no  evidence  whatever, 


128 

that  they  ever  administered  baptism  as  an  ordinance 
of  the  church  of  Christ.  And  no  man  may  build  an- 
argument  on  a  mere  supposition  without  evidence. 
The  difficulty  then  remains  in  all  its  force;  and  no- 
thing that  the  "Reply"  has  said,  tends  in  any  degree 
to  diminish  its  weight,  much  less  to  remove  it.  How 
could  such  a  multitude  have  been  immersed,  under 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  in  the  space  of  time 
in  which  these  three  thousand  were  baptized?  The 
^question  has  often  been  asked,  and  still  remains  un- 
answered. 

2.  But  should  it  be  granted  that  it  is  within  the 
limits  of  possibility,  that  such  a  multitude  of  persons 
■could  have  been  immersed  in  the  space  of  time  in 
which  these  three  thousand  were  baptized,  where 
could  a  place  be  found  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  or 
in  its  vicinity,  in  which  such  a  number  of  persons 
could  be  immersed?  There  was  no  flowing  river  or 
running  stream  of  any  considerable  size,  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  scene.  And  if  we  should  grant 
what  is  altogether  improbable,  that  the  pools  of  the 
city  would  have  answered  the  purpose,  is  it  to  be 
supposed  that  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  hostile  to 
Christianity  as  they  were,  would  permit  the  pools 
which  furnished  a  supply  of  water  for  the  city,  to  be 
polluted  by  immersing  in  them  such  a  multitude  of 
persons?  Reader,  if  you  will  preserve  your  gravity, 
I  will  give  you  Mr.  Williams'  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion. "In  regard  to  polluting  the  pools,"  he  says, 
"Josephus  attributes  the  healing  virtues  of  the  water 
of  Bethesda,  to  the  entrails  of  animals  brought  to 
the  sheep-market  near  by  this  pool."  So  then  it  ap- 
pears that  a  pool  rendered  filthy  by  means  of  "the 
entrails  of  animals,"  would  be  an  admirable  place 
for  plunging  men  and  women!     Ah!  pudet!  pudet! 


129 

But  unfortunately  for  Mr.  Williams,  Josephus  does 
not  mention  the  healing  virtues  of  this  pool  at  all, 
much  less  does  he  attribute  them  to  such  a  cause! 

The  Pastor  of  the  First  Baptized  Church,  of 
Pittsburgh,  is  a  great  reader,  and  seems  to  be  very 
familiar  with  Doddridge.  If  he  will  refresh  his 
memory  by  looking  into  Doddridge,  he  will  find  that 
the  silence  of  Josephus  in  relation  to  the  healing  effi- 
cacy of  the  waters  of  Bethesda,  was  a  matter  of 
surprise  to  this  distinguished  writer.* 

It  appears  then,  that  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  are  against  the  supposition  that  this  multitude 
were  immersed,  while  there  is  nothing  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  historian,  which  conveys  any  allusion 
to  immersion.  And  here  let  me  call  the  attention  of 
the  reader  to  a  very  disingenuous  remark  of  the 
"Reply."  "On  the  baptism  at  Jerusalem  it  is  only 
necessary  further  to  say,  that  no  historian  thinks  of 
describing  the  attendant  circumstances  of  any  given 
custom  or  rite,  in  their  minutise,  every  time  he  refers 
to  it.  He  only  deems  it  necessary  to  name  it  as  he 
sees  it,  after  he  has  once  or  twice  particularly  de- 
scribed the  scene."  The  reader  would  at  once  sup- 
pose from  these  words,  that  the  sacred  historian  had 
already  in  repeated  instances,  described  the  adminis- 
tration of  this  ordinance.  And  yet  every  one  who 
has  any  knowledge  of  his  Bible,  knows  that  this  is 
the  first  example  of  the  administration  of  baptism  re- 
corded in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church.  The 
apostles  had  but  a  short  lime  before  received  their 
commission  to  go  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature;  being  directed  at  the  same  time  to  tarry  in 
Jerusalem,  until  they  should  be  endued  with  power 

*  Expositor  in  Loco. 


130 

from  on  high.  Accordingly,  the  Spirit  being  poured 
out  upon  them  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  they  began 
to  execute  their  Iiigh  commission.  "Then  they  that 
gladly  received  the  word  were  baptized;  and  the  same 
day  there  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand 
souls."  This  then  is  the  first  instance  of  the  admin- 
istration of  baptism,  after  the  apostles  received  their 
commission  and  were  endued  with  power  from  on 
high.  And  yet,  there  is  not  a  single  circumstance 
mentioned,  which  conveys  the  remotest  allusion  to 
immersion,  while  all  the  circumstances  are  unfavor- 
able to  the  supposition  that  the  rite  was  performed 
by  immersion.  The  apostles  themselves,  had  just 
been  baptized  by  the  Spirit,  who  had  been  poured  out 
on  them.  And,  therefore,  it  is  a  natural  conclusion, 
that  they  baptized  this  multitude  by  pouring  water 
on  them. 

The  baptism  of  the  Jailer  of  Philippi,  is  next  in- 
troduced in  the  Lectures,  as  an  example  in  which  all 
the  circumstances  are  against  the  claims  of  immer- 
sion. Paul  and  Silas  having  been  imprisoned,  the 
Jailer  who  was  strictly  charged  to  keep  them  safely, 
"thrust  them  into  the  inner  prison  and  made  their 
feet  fast  in  the  stocks."*  By  an  earthquake  about 
midnight,  the  foundations  of  the  prison  were  shaken, 
and  immediately  all  the  doors  were  opened.  The 
Jailer  awaking  out  of  sleep  and  seeing  the  doors  of 
the  prison  open,  and  supposing  that  the  prisoners  had 
made  their  escape,  was  about  to  kill  himself  But 
Paul  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  saying,  "do  thyself  no 
harm,  for  we  are  all  here."  By  a  remarkable  display 
of  div,ine  grace,  the  jailer  was  brought  under  the 
power  of  conviction;  and  after  he  had  been  instruct- 

*  Acts  16:  24. 


131 

ed  in  the  way  of  salvation  by  these  servants  of  the 
Lord,  "he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night  and 
washed  their  stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all 
his  straightway."  In  this  case,  there  is  nothing  men- 
tioned which  in  any  degree  favors  the  supposition 
that  the  jailer  was  immersed;  while  the  circumstan- 
ces, (this  baptism  being  performed  in  a  prison,  and 
at  the  hour  of  midnight,)  are  directly  againsjt  such 
supposition. 

Now,  what  does  Mr.  Williams  say  in  reply] 
"They  were  in  the  prison,"  the  Dr.  says.  Luke 
says,  "they  were  brought  out."  Yes,  but  Luke  does 
not  say,  that  they  were  brought  out  of  the  prison. 
The  jailer  had  "thrust  them  into  the  inner  prison^ 
and  had  made  their  feet  last  in  the  stocks."  But 
after  the  jailer  had  experienced  conviction  and  desir- 
ed to  receive  instruction,  he  brought  Paul  and  Silas 
out  of  the  inner  prison^  where  their  feet  were  made 
fast  in  the  stocks.  But  that  they  were  not  taken  out 
of  the  prison,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  on  the 
following  day,  when  the  magistrates  sent  word  to  the 
jailer  to  let  them  go,  Paul  and  Silas  refused  to  go  out 
of  the  prison,  until  the  magistrates  themselves  came 
and  besought  them  to  depart.  Then  they  went  out 
of  the  prison.  From  the  history  then,  it  is  evident, 
that  this  baptism  was  performed  in  the  prison;  and  it 
is  every  way  improbable  that  it  was  performed  by  im- 
mersion. 

The  Lectures  in  the  next  place,  notice  other  exam- 
ples, in  which  it  is  alleged,  that  the  circumstances 
favor  the  claims  of  immersion.  "John  was  baptiz- 
ing in  jfEnon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  much 
water  there."  John  4:  23.  From  this  declaration 
the  advocates  of  immersion  infer,  that  John  selected 
a  place  where  there  was  much  water,  with  reference 


132 

to  a  particular  manner  of  perfornning  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism. This,  however,  is  their  inference;  the  history 
itself  says  no  such  thing.  The  word  baptizing,  here 
signifies  not  only  the  performing  of  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism, but,  the  exercise  of  his  ministry,  of  which  bap- 
tism was  a  prominent  part.  John  instructed  those 
who  waited  upon  his  ministry,  and  thus  prepared 
them  for  the  reception  of  baptism.  And  that  his 
ministry  was  attended  by  vast  multitudes,  is  express- 
ly declared.  "Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem  and 
all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan." 
A  regard  not  only  for  the  comfort,  but  even  for  the 
safety  of  the  vast  multitudes  who  flocked  together  to 
hear  the  preaching  of  John,  rendered  it  necessary,  in 
that  southern  region,  in  which  running  water  was 
not  every  where  to  be  found,  that  he  should  select 
such  a  place  for  the  exercise  of  his  ministry,  as  that 
which  is  here  specified,  no  matter  what  may  have 
fceen  the  mode,  according  to  which  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism was  performed. 

The  reader  will  here  permit  me  to  mention  a  fact, 
which  came  under  my  own  observation.  In  my 
youth,  I  was  once  present  at  a  Baptist  association 
at  Bethany,  in  Edgefield  District,  South  Carolina, 
which  is  in  about  the  same  latitude  with  the  place 
where  John  exercised  his  ministry.  The  supply  of 
water  at  this  place,  was  neither  abundant,  nor  of  a 
good  quality.  The  consequence  was,  that  much  in- 
convenience was  experienced  by  the  brethren  of  the 
Association,  during  the  few  days  of  their  meeting; 
and  the  complaint  was  loud  and  general  that  the  place 
had  been  injudiciously  selected,  because  there  was 
not  much  water  there.  And  those  who  are  at  all 
acquainted  with  the  state  of  things  in  the  southern 
part  of  our  own  country,  know  that  when  a  place  is 


133 

to  be  selected  for  what  is  called  a  "  Camp-meeting," 
or  other  large  assembly,  one  of  the  first  inquiries  is, 
*'Is  there  a  plentiful  supply  of  good  water?" 

No  inference  then  can  with  certainty  be  drawn 
from  this  fact  in  the  history  of  John's  ministry,  but 
that  he  was  a  prudent  and  a  merciful  man,  and  con- 
sulted the  safety  and  comfort  of  his  hearers  in  select- 
ing a  suitable  place,  where  the  multitudes  might  at- 
tend upon  his  instructions.  As  to  the  manner  in 
which  he  performed  the  rite  of  baptism,  this  passage 
of  scripture  says  nothing. 

The  case  of  the  Ethiopean  eunuch  is  often  appeal- 
ed to,  as  though  it  were  conclusive  in  support  of  the 
claims  of  immersion.  But  after  we  have  examined 
with  attention  and  care,  the  history  of  this  case,  all 
that  can  be  determined  with  certainty  is,  that  Philip 
baptized  the  eunuch.  But  in  what  manner  the  rite 
was  performed,  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty; 
and  the  inferences  of  men  are  likely  to  vary  accord- 
ing to  their  peculiar  views.  Every  one  acquainted 
with  the  Greek  language,  knows  that  the  38th  and 
39th  verses  may  with  propriety  be  rendered,  "they 
went  down  both  Jo  the  water,"  and  "when  they  were 
come  up  from  the  water."  The  man  who  will  not 
admit  this,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  is  either  unac- 
quainted with  the  language,  or  he  is  not  honest. 
Examples  in  which  the  prepositions  are  thus  render- 
ed, may  be  seen  below.*  And  as  Philip  and  the 
eunuch  were  in  the  chariot,  at  the  time  when  "they 
came  to  a  certain  water,"  and  the  eunuch  desired 
baptism,  it  is  extremely  natural  for  the  historian  ta 
say  that  they  went  down  from  the  chariot  to  the  wa- 
ter.    And  as  the  eunuch  after  he  was  baptized,  re- 

*  Acts  7 : 3,  4,  and  8  :  40.    John  20 : 3,  4,  and  4 :  47. 
12 


134 

sumed  his  seat  in  his  carriage,  it  is  equally  natural 
to  say  that  they  went  up  from  the  water  into  the 
chariot.  There  is,  moreover,  a  circumstance  men- 
tioned, which  furnishes  ground  for  a  plausible  con- 
jecture, that  the  eunuch  was  baptized  by  sprinkling. 
In  immediate  connection  with  the  passage  of  the  pro- 
phet, which  the  eunuch  was  reading  when  Philip 
first  drew  near  to  him,  we  find  these  remarkable 
words:  "so  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations.'**  These 
are  the  only  words  in  the  context  which  can  be  re- 
garded as  having  reference  to  baptism;  and  it  is  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  in  explaining  these  words, 
Philip  took  occasion  to  speak  of  baptism  and  of  the 
spiritual  blessings  represented  by  it.  And  hence  the 
eunuch's  desire  to  receive  baptism,  when  "they  came 
to  a  certain  water." 

In  Mr.  Williams'  reply  to  this  argument^  he  gives 
us  another  notable  display  of  his  extensive  learning. 
He  says,  "the  Hebrew  word  rendered  "sprinkle,"  in 
the  verse  referred  to,  is  almost  invariably  translated 
elsewhere  by  astonish^     Almost  invariably! 

Now,  Sir,  you  are  caught!  There  is  not  a  single 
instance  in  all  the  Bible,  in  which  the  Hebrew  word 
is  translated  by  ^^astonish."  The  word  nazah,  in  its 
different  forms,  is  employed  in  the  Hebrew  bible  not 
less  than  twenty-three  times,  and  instead  of  being 
"almost  invariably"  translated  by  "astonish,"  it  is 
never  in  a  solitary  instance  so  translated,  but  is  in- 
variably translated  by  the  English  word  sprinkle. 
And  now  permit  me  to  say,  that  the  religious  public 
will  expect  of  you  some  suitable  apology  for  practis- 
ing upon  your  readers  such  an  imposition.  While 
you  have  much  to  say  about  Greek,  and  Hebrew,  and 

*  Isaiah  52  :  15. 


135 

German,  and  evidently  wish  to  pass  for  a  man  of 
extensive  learning,  you  "almost  invariably"  display 
something  very  different  from  critical  knowledge 
when  you  take  a  seat  in  the  chair  of  Philology. 

As  the  passage  in  Romans  6 : 1 — 4,  might  appear 
to  a  superficial  observer  to  give  some  countenance 
to  the  claims  of  immersion,  and  as  it  probably  has 
more  influence  with  the  uninformed,  than  any  other, 
the  Lectures  have  examined  it  with  particular  care. 
And  it  is  believed  that  any  one  who  will  inquire  into 
the  meaning  and  design  of  the  apostle,  will  be  led  to 
the  conclusion,  that  the  manner  of  performing  the 
rite  of  baptism,  was  not  then  in  his  thoughts.  It  de- 
serves particular  attention,  that  before  any  argument 
can  be  drawn  from  this  portion  of  scripture,  in  favor 
of  immersion,  we  must  take  for  granted  that  which 
cannot  be  proved,  and  which,  it  is  believed,  is  not 
the  fact — and  that  is,  that  the  apostle  in  the  passage 
under  consideration,  refers  to  the  mode  of  baptism. 
But  that  it  is  to  the  spiritual  meaning  of  baptism,  and 
not  to  the  manner  of  performing  the  external  rite, 
seems  conclusively  evident  from  this  consideration 
alone,  that  the  apostle  does  not  speak  of  a  burial  by 
baptism  into  water;  but  he  says,  "  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death.^''  It  is  not,  then, 
the  external  rite  to  which  he  refers,  but  the  spirit- 
ual meaning  of  the  ordinance.  It  is  not  the  outward 
baptism  with  water,  but  that  spiritual  baptism  into 
Christ,  by  which  we  become  one  with  him  and  are 
interested  in  his  death  and  resurrection,  that  the 
apostle  here  speaks.  And  as  baptism  is  significant 
of  our  union  to  Christ,  and  of  our  consequent  inte- 
rest in  his  death  and  resurrection,  we  are  said  ia 
figurative  language,  to  be  buried  with  Christ  into 
death,  not  into  water.     Since  then  there  is  no  n,e.- 


136 

cessity  to  suppose  that  the  apostle  refers  to  the  man- 
ner of  performing  the  rite  of  baptism;  and  since  such 
a  supposition  tends  to  obscure  if  not  destroy  the 
sense,  we  conclude  that  the  assumption  of  the  advo- 
cates of  immersion,  is  unfounded  and  improbable; 
and  that  the  claims  of  immersion,  in  so  far  as  this 
passage  of  scripture  is  concerned,  stand  upon  a  foun- 
dation of  sand. 

The  reply  of  Mr.  Williams  to  the  argument  of  the 
Lectures  on  this  portion  of  scripture,  proves  at  least, 
that  he  does  not  know  how  to  meet  it,  and  contains 
nothing  deserving  of  notice. 

The  reader  is  requested  to  attend  to  one  other  ex- 
ample of  baptism,  which  it  is  believed  no  one,  from 
reading  the  sacred  history,  would  suppose  was  per- 
formed after  the  manner  of  immersion.  It  is  the 
baptism  of  Saul  of  Tarsus.*  After  this  remarkable 
man  was  brought  to  a  knowledge  of  the  Savior  and 
was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  "immediately  there 
fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales,  and  he  re- 
ceived sight  forthwith,  and  arose  and  was  baptized." 
It  will  be  admitted  by  every  candid  mind,  that  in  this 
case  at  least,  there  is  nothing  which,  in  the  remotest 
degree,  looks  like  immersion.  Saul  was  in  the  house 
of  Judas,  in  the  city  of  Damascus,  when  visited  by 
Ananias  in  obedience  to  divine  direction.  When 
Ananias  entered  the  house,  he  put  his  hands  on  him 
and  said,  "Brother  Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus  that 
appeared  unto  thee  in  the  way  as  thou  camest,  hath 
sent  me,  that  thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight  and  be 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  immediately  Saul 
received  sight,  arose,  and  was  baptized.  He  was 
not  travelling  in  a  cHariot  on  the  high-way,  as  was 

*  Acts  9:18. 


137 

the  Ethiopean  eunuch»  And  therefore  it  is  not  said 
that  Saul  and  Ananias  went  down  to  the  water, — 
which  in  such  a  case  is  natural  and  appropriate. 
But  he  was  seated  in  the  house,  while  Ananias  was 
standing  before  him.  And  what  was  done?  Did 
they  go  out  of  the  house  to  some  contiguous  stream? 
There  is  nothing  like  it  mentioned.  Saul,  who  was 
sitting  in  the  house,  arose,  and  was  baptized.  How 
natural  is  the  language,  on  the  supposition  that  Ana- 
nias baptized  Saul  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water 
on  him!  But  how  many  improbable  "-/jTs,"  must  the 
advocate  of  the  exclusive  claims  of  immersion  call 
in  to  his  aid,  to  extricate  him  from  difficulty! 

Let  me  conclude  with  two  considerations,  which 
conclusively  demonstrate  that  baptism  by  sprinkling 
or  pouring  water  on  the  person  baptized,  is  a  scrip- 
tural mode  of  performing  the  rite. 

1,  The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is,  in  scripture,  al- 
ways described  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  The 
baptism  of  water  is  external;  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  is  that  internal  change  in  the  heart  which  is 
effected  by  divine  power.  The  former  is  emblematic 
of  the  latter.  Since  the  internal  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
is  said  to  be  effected  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  then 
it  is  absolutely  certain  that  the  outward  baptism, 
which  is  emblematic  of  it,  may  be  performed  in  a 
scriptural  manner  by  sprinkling.  "I  will  pour  wa- 
ter upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground:  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed  and 
my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring."*  "Then  will  I 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean 
from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your  idols  will 
I  cleanse  yon.     A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you, 

*  leaiah  44  ;  3. 
12* 


138 

and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you."*  "Except 
a  nnan  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."f  In  this  latter 
passage  we  have  a  reference  to  the  external  baptism 
with  water,  in  the  phrase,  "Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water;"  and  also,  to  the  inward  baptism,  of  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author,  in  the  phrase,  "born  of 
the  Spirit."  The  Holy  Spirit  in  his  purifying  and 
refreshing  influences,  is  represented  under  the  em- 
blem of  water.  And  the  communication  of  his  influ- 
ences to  the  soul,  is  represented  under  the  idea  of 
sprinkling:  "I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you." 
Since  then  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  represented 
under  the  idea  of  sprinkling,  the  external  rite  of  bap- 
tism is  performed  scripturally  by  sprinkling. 

2.  The  blood  of  Christ  which  cleanseth  from  sin, 
and  which  is  applied  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  heart 
and  conscience  for  the  removal  of  moral  pollution, 
is  termed  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling;"  and  the  appli- 
cation of  the  blood  of  atonement  is  represented  un- 
der the  idea  of  sprinkling.  "We  are  come,"  says 
the  apostle,  "to  Jesus,  the  Mediator  of  the  New 
Covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of  sprinkling,  that 
speaketh  better  things  than  that  of  Abel."J  "If  the 
blood  of  bulls  ^nd  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an 
heifer,  spi'inkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the 
purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the 
blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  of- 
fered himself  to  God,  purge  your  consciences  from 
dead  works,  to  serve  the  living  God."  Since,  then, 
the  blood  of  atonement,  of  which  the  water  of  bap- 
tism is  significant,  is  termed  the   blood   of  sprink- 

*Ezek.  36:25,26.  tJohn  3:5. 

•       tHeb.  12:24,  and  9:13,  14. 


139 

ling;  and  since  the  application  of  its  purifying  vir- 
tue to  the  conscience,  is  represented  under  the  idea 
of  sprinkling;  therefore,  the  application  of  the  water 
of  baptism  in  the  form  of  sprinkling,  is  at  once  a 
simple,  expressive  and  scriptural  mode  of  perform- 
ing the  rite. 

And  now,  dear  reader,  permit  me  affectionately 
to  take  my  leave  of  you,  by  calling  your  attention 
to  the  great  importance  of  the  truth,  that  in  Jesus 
Christ  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor 
uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature.  It  is  to  be 
feared  that  many  place  that  reliance  upon  the  exter- 
nal rite,  which  ought  to  be  founded  exclusively  upon 
the  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  deceive  them- 
selves by  imagining  that,  if  they  have  been  baptized 
in  the  way  which  they  consider  proper,  all  will  be 
well.  But  I  need  not  inform  the  intelligent  christian, 
that  the  baptism  of  water,  no  matter  what  may  be 
the  manner  in  which  the  water  has  been  applied, 
will  be  of  no  avail,  unless  we  are  partakers  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit.  The  ordinance  of  God  should 
not  indeed  be  undervalued,  much  less  should  it  be 
despised.  But  let  no  one  look  to  the  water  of  bap- 
tism for  that  purification  from  sin,  which  can  be  ef- 
fected only  by  the  blood  of  atonement,  applied  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  And  may  you,  dear  reader,  be 
saved  according  to  the  mercy  of  God,  by  the  wash- 
ing of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
poured  out  on  you  abundantly,  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Savior. — Amen. 


A  BRIEF  CATECHISM  ON  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


Q.  What  do  you  understand  by  the  mode  of 
baptism? 

A.  It  is  the  manner  of  performing  the  external 
rite. 

Q.  Is  there  a  propriety  in  using  the  phrase,  the 
mode  of  baptism? 

A.  There  is  manifestly.  For  if  the  ordinance  is 
administered  at  all,  the  external  rite  must  be  per- 
formed after  some  manner. 

Q.  What  are  the  conflicting  views,  with  regard 
to  the  mode  of  baptism? 

A.  They  may  be  reduced  to  two.  The  one  main- 
tains that  it  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  baptism, 
that  the  body  be  immersed  in  water:  the  other  main- 
tains that  baptism  is  administered  in  a  scriptural 
manner  by  affusion  or  sprinkling. 

Q.  Does  not  the  word  translated  baptize^  deter- 
mine that  the  rite  must  be  performed  by  immer- 
sion? 

A.  It  does  not.  For  though  one  of  the  significa- 
tions of  the  word,  is,  to  immerse;  and  though  ac- 
cording to  classic  usage  this  is  its  predominant 
meaning,  yet  the  word  has  other  significations;  and 
therefore  it  is  a  question  to  be  determined  by  a  refe- 
rence to  the  New  Testament, — In  what  sense  is  the 


142 

word  to  be  taken,  when  applied  to  a  christian  ordi- 
nance? 

Q.  Why  should  not  prevailing  classic  usage  de- 
termine the  meaning  of  the  word  baptize,  in  its  ap- 
plication to  Christian  baptism? 

A.  Because  the  classic  authors  of  pagan  antiqui- 
ty do  not  use  the  word  with  reference  tp  that  ordi- 
nance. As  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  em- 
ploy the  term  in  reference  to  a  new  institution,  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  would  use  it  in  a  pe- 
culiar sense. 

Q.  Do  not  Lexicographers  of  established  reputa- 
tion, generally  give,  as  one  of  the  significations  of 
the  word,  "to  wash?" 

A.  They  do.  Scapula,  Hedericus,  Schrevilius, 
Groves,  and  the  Lexicons  generally,  may  be  refer- 
red to  as  examples. 

Q.  How  does  it  appear  that  the  word  baptize, 
when  used  in  reference  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
signifies,  to  wash? 

A.  Because  this  is  the  only  signification  of  the 
word,  which  corresponds  with  the  meaning  and  de- 
sign of  baptism. 

Q.  Of  what  is  baptism  significant? 

A.  It  signifies  spiritual  washing,  or  cleansing 
from  sin.     Acts  22  ;  16. 

Q.     Of  what  is  the  water  in  baptism  emblematic? 

A.  It  is  an  emblem  of  the  purifying  virtue  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus,  applied  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  1  John 
1  :  7;— John  3:5. 

Q.  In  what  manner  then  should  the  water  in  bap- 
tism be  applied  to  the  body? 

A.  It  should  be  applied  in  such  a  manner,  as,  ac- 
cording to  scripture  usage,  is  significant  of  washing 
or  cleansing.     And  as  the  blood  of  Christ  is  termed 


143 

the  blood  of  sprinkling,  (Heb  12  :  24;)  and  as  the  le- 
gal purifications  were  to  a  great  extent  performed  by- 
sprinkling,  (Numb.  8:7,  and  19  :  18— Heb.  9  :  13;) 
and  as  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  said  to  be 
communicated  by  sprinkling,  (Isaiah  44  :  3, — Ezek. 
36  :  25 — 28;)  therefore,  the  application  of  water  in 
baptism  by  sprinkling,  is  both  scriptural  and  signifi- 
cant of  the  design  of  the  ordinance. 

Q.  Is  there  any  truth  in  the  assertion  that  the  word 
baptize,  signifies  to  immerse,  and  nothing  else? 

A.  The  assertion  is  palpably  false.  The  apostles 
were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  when  the  Spirit 
was  poured  out  on  them:  (Acts  1:  5,  compared  with 
2 :  17.)  The  Israelites  were  baptized  in  the  sea, 
and  yet  they  walked  on  dry  land  in  the  midst  of  the 
sea,  and  the  waters  were  a  wall  unto  them  on  their 
right  hand  and  on  their  left:  (Exod.  14:29,  compar- 
ed with  1  Cor.  10:2.) 

Q.  As  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  of  which  the 
baptism  of  water  is  emblematic,  is  said  to  be  perform- 
ed by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  are  not  ihey  baptized  in 
a  scriptural  manner,  on  whom  the  water  is  poured  or 
sprinkled? 

A.  They  are  baptized  in  a  scriptural  manner. 

Q.  Is  there  an  example  of  baptism  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament,  in  which  it  is  said  that  the  person 
was  immersed  ? 

A.  There  is  not  one;  nor  is  there  a  single  instance 
in  which  it  can  be  made  appear  from  the  circumstan- 
ces mentioned,  that  there  was  an  immersion. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  of  the  case  of  the  eunuch, 
recorded  in  Acts,  8th  chapter? 

A.  Philip  baptized  the  eunuch,  but  in  what  way 
we  are  not  told.  They  may  have  stepped  into  the 
edge  of  the  water,  and  Philip  may  have  taken  up 


144 

some  water  in  his  hand  and  sprinkled  it  on  the 
eunuch;  or,  which  is  more  probable,  they  may  have 
gone  down  to  the  water  without  entering  it  at  all. 
However,  the  sacred  history  does  not  say  that  Philip 
immersed  the  eunuch,  but  that  he  baptized  him. 

Q.  What  do  you  say  of  the  passage  in  Romans 
6  :  3,  4? 

A.  It  determines  nothing  at  all  with  regard  to  the 
mode  of  baptism,  because  it  cannot  be  proved  that 
the  apostle  alludes  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  He  does 
not  speak  of  a  burial  in  water,  but  of  being  "buried 
with  Christ,  by  baptism  into  death.  It  is,  therefore, 
not  to  ihe  mode  of  baptism,  but  to  the  spiritual  mean- 
ing of  the  ordinance,  that  the  apostle  refers. 

Q.  What  should  be  the  object  of  our  great  con- 
cern, with  regard  to  baptism? 

A.  Not  that  the  water  of  baptism  should  be  ap- 
plied to  the  body  in  this  way,  or  in  that  way,  but 
to  see  that  we  are  partakers  of  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  In  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision 
availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new 
creature* 


/-■• 


,-v^ 


